Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
[edit] Central Coast Mariners FC
I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. A "good article" since November 28, it follows the club pages manual of style and is fully referenced.
As a note, it had a peer review at the end of November, which mainly focused on structural issues at the time.
In my opinion, one of the best parts about this page is the images, which are generally so lacking in most sports articles. A lot of time and effort has gone in to securing free images from the club and photographers, all of which have permission archived in the OTRS system.
Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ref #33 is missing.--Rmky87 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed it is - it somehow got lost. Restored from history, so
Done. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed it is - it somehow got lost. Restored from history, so
Support. Very good overall. Excellent prose I must say. Throughout comments:
- Image:Dean Heffernan2.jpg has a watermark, which is generally disallowed in Wikipedia images.
- Done, with the removal of Heffernan from the section which the image was in, the image went also.
- Image:Central Coast FC.gif doesn't have a fair use rationale.
- Done
- "The Marinators also have a Mariners fans forum and web site." - 1) "web site" > "website". 2) Rather trivial information, anything it's notable for?
- Done; not really, no - it is, in effect, unreferenced, so I've removed it.
- Separate the notes section from the references, seeing as the first note contains improperly formatted references. It might also be confusing for the readers.
- May I ask, how? Use {{note}}? I wasn't sure how to do this.
- Yes. Take a look here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Looks much better, thanks. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Take a look here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask, how? Use {{note}}? I wasn't sure how to do this.
- Lacks references for achievements, records, and personnel.
- Doing.
- Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done for Notable players; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Doing.
- "Socceroos" > "Australia national football team players". ...coping financially.[19] but after forming > No need in a punctuation here, move the reference to the end of the sentence. "They participate in the A-League, and are one > Remove the comma. ...local businessman John Singleton the clubs financial worries were eased - Add a comma after "John Singleton". The Mariners have been able to secure > The Mariners secured. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks very much for raising those (I've converted your comment into dot-points for ease of use, I hope you don't mind). Any advice on what to use for the ref/note split would be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I must have missed the peer review for this one. A few (mostly minor) things before this can get my support:
- Why is Hefferman listed as a star player?
- Done. I don't know, exactly :) I originally thought when it was added he was a Socceroo squad member, but on further checking he isn't. Removed (with the picture, see above).
- A rivalry with Newcastle United Jets is mentioned in the lead, but is not included anywhere in the body of the article.
- Should I create a separate section for rivalry, or include it in one of the existing ones? I can't see which existing one I could put it in, but on the flip side, The Mariners are only two years, and SFC and NUJ are the only rivals (ie. "F3 derby" and "NSW Cup").
- Done, moved to History section. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should I create a separate section for rivalry, or include it in one of the existing ones? I can't see which existing one I could put it in, but on the flip side, The Mariners are only two years, and SFC and NUJ are the only rivals (ie. "F3 derby" and "NSW Cup").
- The use of tenses is mixed in places (I might fix this one myself in the next day or two)
- I would be very greatful if you could - I am hopeless with stuff like that :)
- Done, I believe. Oldelpaso edited this to make some minor copy-editing changes; I presume this was to fix these tense problems. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would be very greatful if you could - I am hopeless with stuff like that :)
- The Colours and crest section is a little thin. The second paragraph is a description of away form, which is not connected to the kit itself. The use of "clean sheet" in this context seems odd. Don't know if its different in Aus. Eng., but in Br. Eng. the term is nearly always used when talking about the defending team. Either way, "failed to score" is easier for a non-sports fan to understand.
- Done for the wording. There isn't all that much information on the strip, hence your concern. The most notable part about it is actually the 05-06 away form with the strip, hence why it's there. I'll look around for a little bit more info regarding the colours/badge.
- Haven't been able to find much else, sadly. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is the Central Coast Leagues Club "the home of the Mariners"? Oldelpaso 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done, removed. It is, really. Directly across from Bluetongue, all post-match stuff occurs there. However, because I recognise that it is really a POV, as such - the CCM offices are at Wyong - and because the reference doesn't point to that info, I've removed it. Thanks for all these suggestions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer some suggestions regarding the comments I made above. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nearly there now. My one concern is that some of the prose in the history section isn't cleanly presented. "Media speculation prior to announcement of the franchises in the new league suggested that the Mariners bid may be favourable due to its new blood, and backing from former Australian national team player and club technical director Alex Tobin, as well as Clean Up Australia personality Ian Kiernan, who would act as club chairman" is the biggest example of this, and should be two or three sentences rather than one. Oldelpaso 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That particular sentence is Done; however, I'm trying to arrange a copyedit for the full section from an unrelated person. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- That particular sentence is
- Nearly there now. My one concern is that some of the prose in the history section isn't cleanly presented. "Media speculation prior to announcement of the franchises in the new league suggested that the Mariners bid may be favourable due to its new blood, and backing from former Australian national team player and club technical director Alex Tobin, as well as Clean Up Australia personality Ian Kiernan, who would act as club chairman" is the biggest example of this, and should be two or three sentences rather than one. Oldelpaso 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A good article from a fantastic editor! Believe me, nobody, more than myself would like to see a Central Coast article featured, however their are a few things I believe need to be fixed up.
- The lead mentions a rivalry with the Newcastle Jets, yet their is no further detail in the prose. If their is more to add then it should go into the history. If not, that paragraph should be move to the history.
- This issue is mentioned above. I'm actively considering doing as you mention and moving it to the history section (with an appropriate rephrasing), which should solve the problem. The only trouble is, will this make the lead too short?
- Done exactly what you said, see above. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This issue is mentioned above. I'm actively considering doing as you mention and moving it to the history section (with an appropriate rephrasing), which should solve the problem. The only trouble is, will this make the lead too short?
- The notable players section lists five players and in its current format shows a POV. I believe this section should detail why and what these players are notable for. The references in this section are also all for either the CCM website or the ALeague website. If these players are indeed notable, then shouldn't they be mentioned in a reliable external source. I personally find it hard to believe that a 2 year old club has had so many notable players.
- I have reworded this section so it clearly states the bar of inclusion in that list is playing international football. This list includes 5 players (
: 4; 
: 1). I will try and find a couple of references, probably at the same time I add a little bit of content outlining that players' international (notable) career in <two sentences :)
- Done for notable players/personnel; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have reworded this section so it clearly states the bar of inclusion in that list is playing international football. This list includes 5 players (
- One thing that this article is definately good for is references. However they are in the wrong places. Achievements and Records should have at least a refernece each, and they should be from an external source.
In addition, does the Achievements section need to be completely bolded.- As noted above, I'm in the process of doing the further referencing. Regarding the bolding of achievements, I'm not exactly sure what you mean (note: MOS). I'd appreciate some further clarification on that point.
- Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- As noted above, I'm in the process of doing the further referencing. Regarding the bolding of achievements, I'm not exactly sure what you mean (note: MOS). I'd appreciate some further clarification on that point.
Good article, yet more to do. In the meantime Oppose. SUPPORT.[1]Todd661
- Thanks for the input. I'll try and clean everything up over the next couple of days. Daniel Bryant 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Conditional[2] Support. Good article, but a few things:
- "The Mariners have a strong rivalry with Newcastle Jets, often referred to as the "F3 derby".[6]" May be a bit biased, but I can't believe that a two-year old derby is that "strong". I'd recommend that the Newcastle Jets rivalry information be included in the fans section, by the way.
- Done, moved from lead.
- "The Central Coast Mariners' bid for the Football Federation Australia's (FFA) new A-League aimed to fill the space for one regional team in the competition.[8]" I don't understand that at all. I presume it means that the Mariners looked to fill the franchise spot designated for a certain area. But that's not clear from that sentence and needs rephrasing.
- Indeed, it isn't the best wording. Will sleep on it.
- Done, I think that should read better. Daniel Bryant 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, it isn't the best wording. Will sleep on it.
- "Prior to the 2006-07 season, the Mariners secured the services of then Australian international Tony Vidmar from NAC Breda for two years.[31] This was the Mariners' first marquee signing, following the lead of Sydney FC (Dwight Yorke) and Adelaide United (Qu Shengqing).[32]" What defines a "marquee player" sounds like a bit of arbitary description to me.
- A marquee player is one whose salary falls outside the salary cap. Each club can have one designated marquee player. This is explained in references like [3] (probably the best for an article reference), [4], [5], [6] and [7]. I appreciate the concern, and will continue searching for the perfect reference to add to the article to clear up this issue. By the way, I've looked into it, and can link "marquee player" to two places: Salary cap#A-League or A-League#Clubs. Each is unreferenced, but I'll fix that :)
- I think if you just wiki-link "marquee player" to Salary cap#A-League that'll be fine. Cheers, HornetMike 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done, too easy :) Daniel Bryant 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think if you just wiki-link "marquee player" to Salary cap#A-League that'll be fine. Cheers, HornetMike 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- A marquee player is one whose salary falls outside the salary cap. Each club can have one designated marquee player. This is explained in references like [3] (probably the best for an article reference), [4], [5], [6] and [7]. I appreciate the concern, and will continue searching for the perfect reference to add to the article to clear up this issue. By the way, I've looked into it, and can link "marquee player" to two places: Salary cap#A-League or A-League#Clubs. Each is unreferenced, but I'll fix that :)
- ""We all follow a yellow football team" (as the Mariners wear a primarily yellow strip when playing at home)." That can be cut down to "(a reference to the colour of the team's kit)" HornetMike 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for that, and all the other, suggestion. I would love a response regarding the marquee player, though. Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, been offline a while so missed an opportunity perhaps, but overall this is a great article. I have only a few very minor comments which you can look at as you see fit.
- The use of WP:DASH, e.g. the en-dash, for seasons such as 2003-04 ought to be 2003–04.
- Done. Ah, yes, the dashes. Thanks for that.
- Highest attendance - against whom, was it a significant match, when was it?
- Done, added details; they were in the records anyways, but can't hurt to add it there as well.
- "..only one football manager.." - it's a clear football article so I'd ditch "football".
- Done
- Records section, this would be nicer in prose rather than a simple list. See Arsenal F.C. for a good guide on what I'm looking for.
- Will do; I like Arsenal's much better than the present CCM one. Added to to-do list.
- Done, I've converted the recors to prose. I estimate that the Records section is currently at 80% completion; I still want to add a paragraph about how they hold the A-League record for longest undefeated streak at home (nearly 12 months), which recieved a lot of media attention. Shouldn't be too hard, I'll do it in a couple of hours' time. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done fully, see below. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Will do; I like Arsenal's much better than the present CCM one. Added to to-do list.
- Refs 1, 11 & 44 are in the wrong place if you follow WP:CITE strictly. And the citations in the notes section.
- Done for 1 (and 2), and 44. 11 I can't seem to see anything wrong with. I've also fixed the notes section.
- Yes, ref 11 is fine, don't know what I was talking about. The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the supporters section there feels to me like an overuse of parentheses, it detracts from the excellent prose.
- Done, fixed.
Hopefully some of that makes sense and/or helps. Great work, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, it helped lots, thanks so much. I'll get to work regarding the Records, and if you could have a look at Ref 11 for me, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me know when you've rewritten the records section and I'll add my support The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll give you a ping when I've done the last 20%, per above. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done, I had to scrap the last 20% because I was mistaken...thank goodness for WP:V :) Notified as per request. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent work, so now, as promised, I offer you strong support. The Rambling Man 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers, and thanks for all your suggestions (and help, with the en dashes - I still hate swapping them over, despite all the practice I'm getting :D), Daniel Bryant 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent work, so now, as promised, I offer you strong support. The Rambling Man 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll give you a ping when I've done the last 20%, per above. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me know when you've rewritten the records section and I'll add my support The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great article. Only one comment. Would it be possible to write something about the clubs ownership. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Regarding the ownership, I believe that this has been covered in the History section. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—1a. Before we jump to conclusions ("excellent prose I must say"), let's take a proper look. I've chosen at random the "Colours and badge" section, which I see comprises three stubby paragraphs.
- "The Mariners home jersey is yellow with a navy left sleeve and stripe on the right sleeve. The companion shorts have a yellow cut up the seam and are matched with yellow socks. Their away uniform is similar, with white jersey and socks and slightly different shorts." Apostrophe missing from the first word. "A" before "stripe". "Running" before "up". "Away" seems very loose in this formal register; is there another word you could substitute for non-expert readers (maybe not)?
- Apostrophe missing from "The"? I don't understand
- I would guess he means the second word - i.e. Mariners' The Rambling Man 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would make sense, I guess. Done. Daniel Bryant 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would make sense, I guess.
- I would guess he means the second word - i.e. Mariners' The Rambling Man 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Stripe Done
- Running Done
- No, "away" is a formal term in this situation, quite clearly meaning "playing away from home".
- Apostrophe missing from "The"? I don't understand
- "Away strip"—Do you mean "trip"? Sounds as though they performed a naked display, but that would be reserved for the calendar, surely. This link might be piped to the specific subsection in the related article.
- "Strip" is the common Australian English word for "Playing clothes". WP:ENGVAR; do you know a term which works for all, which admittedly would be better than the current situation.
- "Whilst"—nowadays, "while" is the norm; please use plain English.
- Done
- "It is within walking distance of the Gosford railway station"—Remove "the", which is unidiomatic here.
- Done
Then further down:
- "Stadium" section: lots of subby paras.
- I dispute this; I (and the others above) believe that the paragraphs here are of sufficent length. Instead of waffling to increase the, concise wording was applied. However, I will try and see if there's any more info related to CCM to flesh out the second and third paragraphd (which are shortish).
- "membership based group"—hyphenate the double epithet.
- Done
- "and have sponsorships from local businesses in the Central Coast region"—"Have" is ungainly here; where else would "local businesses" be but in the CCR?
- Done
Please don't just correct these issues; they're examples of why a thorough copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this has already been done. However, I am currently trying to find at least one more copyeditor to have a look. Cheers, and thanks for the comments, Daniel Bryant 03:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
}
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
[edit] Final Fantasy XII
Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.
The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckiller 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Co-nom and support, a lot of work went into this article and it's quite impressive. I, too, am hoping that this FAC will be a good opportunity to improve the article. If this passes, it will be the fasted turnover from release to FA status of any FF game so far. Axem Titanium 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Things...
-
- The comma in the second sentence seems unnecessary (I might be wrong).
- Is the serial comma the standard for this article? It jumps back and forth.
- Should "Gambits" be capitalized?
- Should "Summoning Magic" be capitalized?
- Should "License" be capitalized?
- a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" exists and is the key energy might sound better as a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy or even a phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy.
- Last sentence in the "Battle system" section seems awkward (again, I might be wrong). --- RockMFR 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm feeling a little sick right now (24 is really starting to make me frustrated, plus the brown bread), so I might not get to them quickly. — Deckiller 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I capitalized "Gambits" for now so it's uniform, and I reworded the mist part. Darthgriz98 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I just took a look at my game and decapitalized "summoning magic", "gambits" and "licenses" because they're common nouns. "License Board" remains because it is proper. Axem Titanium 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I believe all issues have been addressed. Feel free to find as many as you can! Correcting fixable errors on FAC (except the nonsense 5MB source/spoiler tag/plot length debates) not only improves the article, but helps everyone spot these mistakes at a later date.— Deckiller 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment You may want to double check your fair use rationales. It seems the ones of the screenshots are refering to cover art in a couple places, and I'm not sure what the intent of those lines was. Jay32183 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed what I saw. Anything else? Axem Titanium 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- That was the only problem I could find. So I support. Jay32183 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- That was the only problem I could find. So I support. Jay32183 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed what I saw. Anything else? Axem Titanium 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The ref for the "Square Enix Product Blog" bit at the very end of the article used to point to some blog source or some crap like that. That site referenced another site, which in turn referenced the SE blog. I've changed it to point directly to the original source, but I can't read Japanese. Someone with that skill should check to make sure the original blog actually says what we are saying it says, and maybe try to get an author name. --- RockMFR 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- During my edits, I updated the Game Rankings score, and in doing so, I noticed that FFXII has dropped to the fourth highest FF game, so I removed the bit about being second highest. It's not really noteworthy anymore, so you might want to move the Game Rankings score into the table and then merge the remaining stub paragraph up or down. --- RockMFR 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I wish my articles would look like that. Some random stuff I found:
- ..are complete and will be available soon - specific date?
- Sorry, the ref doesn't give a specific date.
- "Final Fantasy XII US - fansite" and "Final Fantasy Wiki" - Remove per WP:EL as non-reliable websites. Done
- ..a special Final Fantasy XII package, which included - "which contained" would be better in this context. Done
- ..brand in Japan - ..Japanese brand. Done
- ..commercially available on March 7, 2006, in Japan - ..commercially available in Japan on March 7, 2006. Done
- No need in an English indicator for the second external link, as the first is the only non-English one. Done
- ..it was the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game of 2006 - was? Done
- ..most released and upcoming Final Fantasy games up to the newest releases - "up to the newest releases" redundant. Done
- Any references for the Japanese and Australian release dates? Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of including references in infoboxes, unless it's controversial, but I'll definitely find some to include elsewhere in the article.
- I've interlaced the things I've tried to address within your comment above. If you have anything else to add, please do. Axem Titanium 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of including references in infoboxes, unless it's controversial, but I'll definitely find some to include elsewhere in the article.
- ..are complete and will be available soon - specific date?
- Support looks good enough. It's impressible the polishing of FF pages (all of the main series are GA or FA...). igordebraga ≠ 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose because of lack of notability of the topic. 69.140.155.148 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)- Not a valid objection. All articles that come to FAC are assumed notable enough to avoid FAC being another AFD. Jay32183 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- My sentiments exactly. That said, do you have any actionable objections? Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, IPs can't participate in these discussions anyway. — Deckiller 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the rules up at the top of the page about it, IPs just never seem to make it to this page. (No vote, I want to play this game sometime so I'm not reading the article) --PresN 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well done, PresN. That's the kind of self-control I wish everyone had. Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the rules up at the top of the page about it, IPs just never seem to make it to this page. (No vote, I want to play this game sometime so I'm not reading the article) --PresN 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, IPs can't participate in these discussions anyway. — Deckiller 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- My sentiments exactly. That said, do you have any actionable objections? Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not a valid objection. All articles that come to FAC are assumed notable enough to avoid FAC being another AFD. Jay32183 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support after reading it over several times, it looks like FA material to me. Darthgriz98 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Firm, well written prose with a multitude of interesting facts and a comprehensive, yet uncrufty treatment of the gameplay. My only objection is to the review table but as that's a personal preference, this nomination has my full support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very well written and easy to follow. It's about time this article joined all the other FA Final Fantasy articles. ZenSaohu 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
[edit] George Washington (inventor)
This was my idea for a perfect April 1 article — a switcheroo of a major historical figure for a quirky nobody. So, in the Main Page box we could say, "George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and ensured a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front lines", and similar sorts of absurd, but vaguely historical-sounding things. Well, that was the idea, anyway. It's hard for me to judge if in its short development time this article has really reached near FA quality, but I've spent way too much time on it in too short a space not to submit this now. Of course, any further improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Pharos 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks nice. I haven't any major things prepending FA status (and I agree it'd make a fantastic MP one for April 1!). there are a number of little things that should be fixed,though:
- Multiple uses of the same ref should be collapsed (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once about that)
- Full dates (i.e. in references) have to be linked for User preferences to work properly
- Maybe the patents should be listed on 2 or even 3 columns? They take an awful lot of screen space.
- There are a number of one-line paragraphs. They have to be refactored.
- The parallel to Ouspensky looks unnecessary and distracting to me.
- Overall, though, I'll be glad to support after those are tweaked. Circeus 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Good job!! Do you subscribe to newspaperarchives.com? BlueLotas 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do indeed have university database access; not sure if it's through that company. It would be impractical, I think, to keep decades of newspapers in my basement.--Pharos 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment My feeling is that it's too short to be a FA. It could also conform closer to {{Biography}}. -Malkinann 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Congratulations on writing such a comprehensive article in such a short space of time. The output is exceptional, and deserves FA status. Bensmith53 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Can we mention that he invented this after the Boston Tea Party? (In this case, several decades after the Boston Tea Party, and not as a direct result, but we can leave that out.) My wise-guy comments aside, here's a couple questions: "There have been several "American Party"s in history — in 1920, former Texas governor James E. Ferguson actually ran under that label." This is confusing. I don't think this is a fact about George Washington at all. Similarly, is the following quote from a Brooklyn polician about George Washington, or James Ferguson? Other than that, I don't think I have any major concerns. Even though this is a quirky article about a relatively unimportant topic, it can get to FA status. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've relegated Ferguson to a footnote. The Brooklyn politician was talking about George Washington, in a joking context that reflects the color of the time period. I hope it's clear that the nomination of Washington was entirely non-serious, and that Washington didn't even know about it till the New York Times reporter tracked him down.--Pharos 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can we get a picture of him? Raul654 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- If a picture of him is not found, I recommend using a crop of the can in Image:Washington_Coffee_New_York_Tribune.JPG. --- RockMFR 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Looks pretty good. Since we're on a tight schedule, I've made a few minor changes myself and will probably make a few more tomorrow. --- RockMFR 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent article done in a short space of time, though some of the prose could be tightened. I've tried searching for a picture on the web, but its a complete nightmare - George Washington, George Corbin Washington (politician) and George Washington Carver (also an inventor) complicate matters, and the fact that along with the above two this inventor also had a surname beginning with c conspired against me. RHB Talk - Edits 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, based on a tip from RockMFR, I found a rare photo :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha, ha, that's an effective crop.--Pharos 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. I like this, too. But I suggest uncropping a bit to show the entire right forearm, and perhaps to show the entire helmut. GW looks better as a soldier in uniform. :-) --74.14.18.41 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha, ha, that's an effective crop.--Pharos 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I've been lending a hand, and ferreting around the article, but not adding substantially. Looks good. Carcharoth 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support — despite the apparent lack of dates. I have a few comments if you really have nothing else to do:
-
- 29 March 1946, 4 January 1920 - Change to constant formatting.
- Create a new "Notes" section to avoid confusion with references, see here as an example.
- ...and also attained - "also" redundant.
- At this time > At the time.
- He died just three years after his company was sold, on March 29, 1946,[2] after an illness, at the age of 74. - Reword the sentence. Remove "just" for NPOV.
- Link all full dates at the image captions. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.
[edit] Cholangiocarcinoma
Having worked on developing this article and requesting a peer review (which provided many helpful suggestions), I think it's now ready in terms of completeness, stability, referencing, and style to be considered for featured-article status. I'm happy to address any deficiencies or suggestions mentioned here to improve the article further. This is essentially a self-nomination. MastCell Talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Except for the staging section, metastasis isn't mentioned anywhere. Metastasis significantly influences prognosis and operability so I think this should be added (even though cholangiocarcinoma rarely has metastasized at the time of presentation). --WS 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Distant metastases are rare, and it seems that it doesn't really matter if you have locally advanced disease or metastatic disease; basically, if the tumor can't be resected for whatever reason, the outcome is poor. Do you have refs for metastasis specifically affecting prognosis? I haven't found any but I'll keep looking. MastCell Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Only for lymph node metastasis: PMID 17278119 PMID 17006609 PMID 11224627 But it is also interesting to mention what the most common sites of metastasis are and like you say that distant metastasis is rare. --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Distant metastases are rare, and it seems that it doesn't really matter if you have locally advanced disease or metastatic disease; basically, if the tumor can't be resected for whatever reason, the outcome is poor. Do you have refs for metastasis specifically affecting prognosis? I haven't found any but I'll keep looking. MastCell Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another comment: after resection a five year survival of 17% is mentioned. Both emedicine and the oxford textbook of surgery pu it at 40%. Any idea which would be more correct? --WS 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done There are a range of survival statistics, depending on the location of the tumor and which series you look at. I've expanded the section considerably to reflect the varying estimates of long-term survival - please take a look. MastCell Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Better now. Support --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well done. The lead could use some additional context to make it more accessible to the average reader. A large percentage of readers would not know where the bile ducts are or what they are. The second sentence tell us they're in or near the liver, but that would be better in the first sentence to ease the reader in. The picture helps, but not quite enough. In the sentence mentioning the left and right hepatic ducts that wording is really only useful to medical practitioners. It's particularly important that the lead is as accessable to everyone as possible. Need to reduce the number of short, one and two sentence paragraphs. There are several throughout. Otherwise looks quite good and I'd support with all that fixed. - Taxman Talk 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I gave it a shot. See what you think. MastCell Talk 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Still needs much more on merging or expanding the short paragraphs, I think I saw about 6 or 7. Now the lead has one. But that simple fix did make the lead more approachable. Now just expand it a little bit. - Taxman Talk 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone through and tried to merge these. I think the short paragraphs don't look as awful or eye-catching to me because I'm using an 800x600 monitor (stone age, I know). It only takes a few sentences to fill the screen. If you see some more that are sticking out to you, feel free to merge them. MastCell Talk 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Still needs much more on merging or expanding the short paragraphs, I think I saw about 6 or 7. Now the lead has one. But that simple fix did make the lead more approachable. Now just expand it a little bit. - Taxman Talk 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I gave it a shot. See what you think. MastCell Talk 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments very good, needs a couple of tweaks though:
- When you say 'higher prevalence among Asian people', you should specify that (I presume) you mean people in Asia, not people of Asian ethnicity who live elsewhere.
- I didn't think of this before, but the existence of HIV infection as a risk factor is only mentioned as a possible explanation for increasing rate of occurrence, but it's not strongly supported by the risk factors section. Is the mechanism for this known?
- Did you manage to dig up any images? The pathophysiology section would be clearer with some pictures.
- The very last sentence is very long and stringy; break it up into two (or note the use of a semicolon ;) Opabinia regalis 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Done I think. Take a look. As far as HIV, it has only been mentioned as a risk factor in one (fairly large) study. It did hold up as significant in multivariate analysis, but I think there's still a question as to whether HIV is directly involved or whether it's a marker for increased risk of hepatitis B/C and cirrhosis, which are clearly linked to cholangiocarcinoma. The mechanism by which HIV might predispose one to develop a cholangiocarcinoma is unknown, as far as I could find in my reading. Images: unfortunately, so far we've got what we've got, unless someone out there has something to upload. MastCell Talk 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Support with the suggestion that the epidemiology section call HIV a 'potential risk factor' or somesuch. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments Thorough, well-written article, nicely organized into sections and with neat, uniform citations. Here are a few suggestions, though, which are really just some loose ideas, because the article is very good as it is currently.
- The article was understandable to a reader as unfamiliar with the subject as myself, but, as FAs are intended for a wide readership, I'd still recommend a few tweaks for accessibility. Perhaps more in-article explanation of technical terms would help. It's not a major concern, though, and the wiki-linking of technical terms already present in the article is very helpful.
- The only national incidence statistics under the "Epidemiology" section are for the United States. Perhaps more data from such countries as Canada, the U.K., and Australia would be useful for comparison (although the difference between incidence in the Western and Eastern world is clear). Perhaps these data could be assembled into a table, which could be right- or left-aligned, if there was a concern that integrating this information into the section's prose would interrupt its flow.
- Some illustrations of particular locations where cancer can develop in the bile ducts might help readers to better understand the points relating to the different effects that these different locations can have. This could be as simple as taking the bile duct diagram and adding a coloured dot. -Severa (!!!) 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Done for the table. It's my first table, so I'm sure if it helps or hinders the article, but we'll see. I tried to de-jargon the article a bit. As far as the illustration, I've seen a couple of beautiful illustrations of the various sites at which cholangiocarcinoma can arise, but all such images I've seen are copyright and not freely available. I don't have the skills to create one on my own, but I'll keep looking. MastCell Talk 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Looks good, very helpful addition. Support. Although further reccomendations for the table would be to rearrange the country statistics in alphabetical order, formalize abbreviations like "U.S.A." to the full country name, and wikilink the names of the countries. This is the standard I've witnessed on articles that feature by-country tabulations of information. Maybe if you asked around WikiProject Medicine, someone might be able to help you find an illustration, or even create one. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid my illustration skills are far too amateur to be of any use in creating anatomical diagrams. -Severa (!!!) 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
[edit] Ipswich Town F.C.
This article has undergone a significant improvement drive recently and has been improved in a number of areas. Several images have been added, all claims have citations, the recentism that afflicts most football club articles has been eradicated and all-in-all I think we have a very good shout for elevation to featured status. The Rambling Man 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support (of course). (As a contributor, I declare a COI) --Dweller 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Looking at the title of this article and the Central Coast Mariners FC article below, I think there should be some consistency in how the FC / F.C. is displayed. Has there been any discussion on which is preferred so that one can change? Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know sheer weight of numbers isn't always the de facto guide to the right answer, but the Mariners article is the only one which says FC and not F.C. After all, F.C. is an acronym for Football Club so ought to be punctuated correctly. But that's just my opinion. Despite the FC vs F.C. issue, what do you think of the article? The Rambling Man 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most football club articles are at F.C. There was some weight behind the idea of changing them all to FC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive6#F.C._or_FC.3F), but it didn't get off the ground. Could be worth a bot request at some point though. Oldelpaso 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Traditionally, Australian clubs have used "FC". CCMFC legally recognise themselves as FC (see this), and basically every reference made to CCM using the full name (FC/F.C. included), which is rare, uses the non-dots version. If Ipswich is F.C., the Mariners isn't changing because FC is more common. There is no real need for consistancy because they are basically unrelated (country, league etc.), and regardless, judge both articles on their merits, not their names. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Calm down, I wasn't judging the articles at all. It just seemed a bit odd that one article was using punctuation and the other wasn't. I thought it was just a consistency issue between our articles, not that some clubs used it 'officially' while others didn't. darkliight[πalk] 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies if I came across abrash or incivilly - it wasn't my intention. This is an issue that, sadly, I feel relatively strongly about on Wikipedia. Sorry again, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all. darkliight[πalk] 10:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies if I came across abrash or incivilly - it wasn't my intention. This is an issue that, sadly, I feel relatively strongly about on Wikipedia. Sorry again, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Calm down, I wasn't judging the articles at all. It just seemed a bit odd that one article was using punctuation and the other wasn't. I thought it was just a consistency issue between our articles, not that some clubs used it 'officially' while others didn't. darkliight[πalk] 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Traditionally, Australian clubs have used "FC". CCMFC legally recognise themselves as FC (see this), and basically every reference made to CCM using the full name (FC/F.C. included), which is rare, uses the non-dots version. If Ipswich is F.C., the Mariners isn't changing because FC is more common. There is no real need for consistancy because they are basically unrelated (country, league etc.), and regardless, judge both articles on their merits, not their names. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good article.
Could perhaps do with a sentence or two more about the imoprtant Robson period, Arnold Muhren, Frans Thyssen - the first real European stars of the English game - famously beating Man Utd 6-0 in 1980(?). It is overshadowed presently by the unremarkable Llyall period. Then I'd support.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done - Oh, and support, my second-favourite team in English football is done justice by this article. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Despite it being very good already, I have given it a very light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Michaelas10's support
CommentsSupport. The peer review pretty much covered it all. A few comments of my own; remove all the fan sites from the external links section as only reliable sources need to be included per WP:EL. Second reference lacks parameters. ...enjoyed brief success - Grammar. ...just two years - POV. Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale. "In popular culture" sections have the lowest priority, thus needs to be added right before the "References" section. Sentence captions should all end with a period per WP:MOS. The #64 reference is a note, please separate it using {{note}} to avoid confusion. ...The Blues, Town or The Tractor Boys - Serial comma. What are the purple/yellow/light blue lines in Image:ITFC record.png? A color map should be made at the caption or at least the image description page. ...resigned in May 1987, after reaching the promotion play-offs - Unnecessary comma. As of March 13, 2007 - Keep the date formatting constant. ...but worse was to follow - The sentence isn't an opposition of the previous. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)- Thanks for the detailed response. I'll take the comments to the article talk page and work on them in detail there. --Dweller 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
All of Michaelas10's comments have been actioned or rebutted at the article talk page, with one exception to-date:
- Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale.
I have no experience of fair-use rationale and would welcome assistance. --Dweller 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've added them myself. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant. All done for this set of comments then. Thank you Michaelas10 - the article's considerably improved as a result. --Dweller 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oldelpaso's support
<Conditionalsupport As youth players are not generally notable enough to have their own article, the list of youth players should not be included. Other than that, its all good. Oldelpaso 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)- Yes, that's just been raised at the article talk page. I've removed the section. --Dweller 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Minor Opposes "fierce rivalry with East Anglian rivals Norwich City, their nearest neighbours to the north in Norfolk, with whom they have contested the East Anglian Derby 134 times since 1902" needs to sourced. If there is a source for this somewhere eles in the article as I've been informed this shouldn't be too difficult. Buc 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- As already discussed on our talk pages, this statement is in the Lead section, which briefly states the main points covered in the article. The article gives sourced data on this issue (and all the other claims in the Lead section, now you mention it). There seems to be consensus that there's no need to cite the information twice and a casual glance through WP:FA shows this is a common (though not the only) way to approach the lead section. --Dweller 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There is also no piont giving the same information twice. Remove it from the lead if it's mentioned later then. Buc 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the way articles work Buc. The lead summarises the main points of the body. As the rivalry is a main point, then it goes in the lead and is elaborated the body.-- Zleitzen(talk) 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The lead is written in the same style as a number of other featured articles, and I can't see how it fails WP:LEAD. It is allowable to mention points in the lead and then elaborate in the body, it is, however, unacceptable to introduce new ideas in the lead. But thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
CommentsSupport The honours section should clarify that "runners-up" means league runners-up. The paragraph beginning "Robson left..." and ending "...award for Burley" can be split into two to make it uniform with the rest of the section. Other than that, a good article. SteveO 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)- Honours section clarified as suggested, thanks. The Rambling Man 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Para split as suggested The Rambling Man 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - all issues resolved, fantastic article. Excellent work by Dweller and The Rambling Man. HornetMike 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tony1's objection
Oppose - 1a. The prose needs cleaning up throughout. Here are random examples:
- "The club was founded in 1878 but they did not play as a professional club until 1936" - Remove "they".
- "The club won the league three further times, in 1929–30, 1932–33 and 1933–34" - "three further times" is clumsy; why not remove it altogether?
- "The club was immediately relegated the following season" - Relegated to what?
- "Major success came with Ipswich Town's only FA Cup trophy in 1978, beating Arsenal in the final at Wembley Stadium" - what, the trophy beat Arsenal?
- En dashes are used throughout, so why not for scores, such as "6–0"?
- Audit use of commas, for example "A poor start to the season, culminating in a 2-0 defeat at Grimsby Town meant that Burley was ..." - Where's the second comma enclosing the nested phrase?
Please don't just fix these examples. Tony 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have responded on Tony1's talk page and will take these concerns to the article talk page to deal with in detail. --Dweller 09:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- All of these concerns have now been addressed, bar "Please don't just fix these examples". --Dweller 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - very good article, matches the criteria. Bigmike 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
[edit] Archaeopteryx
From the People who brought you Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Compsognathus & many many more, comes Archaeopteryx, hopefully the next Featured Dinosaur! Seriously though, this is another great article from the Wikiproject Dino team & it has come a long way in the last month or so & I'm proud to be able to nominate it. It has 34 inline ciations & many more references. It is informative, thourough & easy to read. It has pictures to boot & is one of my pet projects. But enough about my opinion, I'll just let you make your opinion up on your own... Thanks a bunch! 
-- Spawn Man 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a contributor and helper. I feel the article is as comprehensive as it can be and the prose is good. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support: it is comprehensive, well illustrated, well referenced and well written. ArthurWeasley 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The article is good but lacks information on the ecology/lifestyle of the birdie in question. While this is some cases speculative it is at least speculation by the people actually studying it. For example, there has been debate as to whether Archaeopteryx was a ground living or a climber, or both. What it actually was is a separate question to what it evolved from or hiow flight evolved. More importantly the islands that it lived on around are well described, being semi arid with little ground cover, so its unlikely it was principally a glider from trees. I think it needs a bit of this type of information before I can support. I have been collecting info on just this so I will try and add it myself, if you like. I'm just sort of swamped, which is why I haven't done it yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well if you can do it, that would be great, but we'd prefer to have no guessing in the article unless it's cited. A quick reference to your point in the Paleobiology section would be great if it's referenced, but I don't know if the other guys have any books on the subject - maybe why it would be better if you would be able to do it or lend us the book or something. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- My last FA had 60 refs, so I understand the importance of refs! That's why its taking me some time. I'll try and do it this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds great. We can go over it once you've added it to make sure it's all polished & acceptable. Thanks SS... :) Spawn Man 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Support now that the section on paleoecology is added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support: I gotta say, you guys do excellent articles. Very thorough, yet not overly verbose, grade-"A"vian work! The only suggestion I have is in the summery section in the taxobox, where the "see text" line could be changed to a quick-link within the article ([Archaeopteryx#Summary|see below]) just to make things more accessible. Just a little quirk that isn't required; you have my support regardless. Nall 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support, kiind words & for the great suggestion. I've made a link in the taxo box now. :) Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - in the lead the article compared the size to a magpie - that name refers to about 20 different birds which is confusing for the "international" reader, could we have a more specific comparison (the exact magpie species) or just mention the wingspan and length in the lead. Second, the taxobox says that the article is about Archaeopteryx lithographica, but the lead says that there are 11 species identified so far. Is it an article about the genus or the species? If it is an article about the whole genus then it could use a list of the accepted species. I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition. --Peta 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree about the magpie. Will tweak to reduce ambiguity. The article refers to 11 specimens (as opposed to species) which are 11 individual fossils not species. Now that you've pointed it out maybe fossils is a better term here. Spawny? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So is there just a single accepted species currently? --Peta 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree we should make it plain in the text that there is only one recognized species. ArthurWeasley 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, why are you looking at me Cas? I only write the articles... ;) Erm, not quite sure what to do here, but I know the article is about the genus, not the species as the article is Archaeopteryx, not Archie lithographica. Other than that, I'll leave it to the people who can tinker around with that sort of thing as I'm not that experienced, sorry guys... Peta - "I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition" - The article already has a paleobiology section? Erm, maybe you were refering to the environment section that's going to be added by sunbird? Never mind though... :) Thanks for your comments... Spawn Man 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So is there just a single accepted species currently? --Peta 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I believe there may be copyright issues with the photos of the Oxford University Museum reconstruction. This is essentially a sculpture, and would be assumed under copyright, unless it is very old.--Pharos 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is the first time we have come across this argument at FAC, though there are ten prior Featured dinosaur articles which use images of fossils and life reconstructions. Drawings and paintings of fossils are certainly protected under copyright law (as long as they are not copyright-expired) because they are an artistic interpretation of what the specimen looked like. Casts and moulds of fossil bones require no artistic skill (only excellent technical ability in reproducing the fossils faithfully), and the assembly of moulds of fossils is based on scientific evidence, not artistic effort (though artistic licence may come into play with less well-preserved genera, such as Protoavis). The feathers on Archaeopteryx are preserved in the fossil record; the sculptor is basing his or her work on actual fossils. Another sculptor who created an Archaeopteryx sculpture based on the same fossils and who ended up creating a very similar model would not be infringing on copyright because both artists based their work on the same fossils, which themselves are not under copyright protection. A photograph of a cast, mould, or sculpture of fossils is a derivative work. But the work it is derived from, unless artistic licence used to great extent, is a technical representation (a rigorous skeletal reconstruction), not a work of creative art. The only portion of the model which is clearly, undisputedly artistic in nature (based entirely on artistic interpretation) is the coloring of the feathers, since the coloring has not been preserved on any specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that some image copyrights may have been dealt with poorly in the past. I think it is clear that any sculpture involves significant artistic talent and license. Look, if Madame Tussauds makes a realistic waxwork of Queen Elizabeth, one based on photographs providing far more definite background info than that available for a fossil species, is not that sculpture copyrightable? It is a strange idea that a 3-D sculpture would be less creative than a 2-D drawing.--Pharos 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This analogy appears sensible, but it is not apt: for this to be a good analogy, Madame Tussauds would have to base their reconstruction on moulds of Queen Elizabeth's skeleton, something they probably will not do. Reconstructions of dinosaurs are based on moulds of the bones and preserved fossil evidence. Skeletal drawings are artistic interpretations of the bones, not castings and impressions of actual fossils. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- But this is a sculpture, not a casting. I think you're tripping off of the idea of "artistic" work. Copyrights don't just apply in an art gallery — the same copyright falls on creative scientific work. This type of reconstruction require myriad real human decisions, that could never be automated. That constitutes real serious creative work.--Pharos 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, you've convinced me; this is indeed a sculpture, not a casting, so your point seems correct. As such, this issue deserves attention. I cannot find information on when this piece was created, and it seems likely to me this sculpture was created after 1922. There are indications Australian law allows "sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship that are on permanent public display (in a public place or in premises open to the public) may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner"[10][11] but I didn't find much about U.S. copyrights on derivative works (where Wikimedia's servers are located) or U.K. derivative works laws (where the sculpture is held) for sculptures which are on permanant public display. I must then assume a "fair use in.." rationale might be more appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- But this is a sculpture, not a casting. I think you're tripping off of the idea of "artistic" work. Copyrights don't just apply in an art gallery — the same copyright falls on creative scientific work. This type of reconstruction require myriad real human decisions, that could never be automated. That constitutes real serious creative work.--Pharos 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This analogy appears sensible, but it is not apt: for this to be a good analogy, Madame Tussauds would have to base their reconstruction on moulds of Queen Elizabeth's skeleton, something they probably will not do. Reconstructions of dinosaurs are based on moulds of the bones and preserved fossil evidence. Skeletal drawings are artistic interpretations of the bones, not castings and impressions of actual fossils. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Came back today to this rather unusual discussion. Yes they are sculptures. However they have been donated for use of the museum. The question is, does the museum permit photographs of those sculptures? If the answer is yes, then that is a form of free use liscencing as the museum has allowed you to take pictures of the art work. If the answer was no, then the images would count as illegally aquired images & would not be allowed to be shown anywhere else. I know for a fact that in most cases the museum in which the sculptures where taken does allow photos for this kind of display & therefore have waved their copyrights. Plus, many other examples of this go on throughout Wikipedia & unless a huge overhaul is made, it will continue to do so. So I hope this answers your concerns, but no, these are legal & there is no need for you to worry Firsfron... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allowing picture-taking in the museum is not carte blanche for allowing unlimited numbers of freely-distributed copies of those photos to proliferate on multiple web sites, some of which (Wikipedia) are non-profit while others (some Wikipedia mirrors and data-scraping sites) are for-profit entities. I think perhaps a fair use rationale should be established for these images, especially when considering these images would appear in a Featured Article: no copyvio (or perceived copyvio) should make it through FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that some image copyrights may have been dealt with poorly in the past. I think it is clear that any sculpture involves significant artistic talent and license. Look, if Madame Tussauds makes a realistic waxwork of Queen Elizabeth, one based on photographs providing far more definite background info than that available for a fossil species, is not that sculpture copyrightable? It is a strange idea that a 3-D sculpture would be less creative than a 2-D drawing.--Pharos 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would be the case if it was an oil painting or the like (which is why you're not allowed to take photos in galleries) But if a mueseum makes public their sculptures, then it is allowed to be reproduced to an extent. A possible resolution would simply be for someone to go to the mueseum & say "Hey, is it okay if I put 1 or 2 of these on wikipedia? Thanks"... They are not fair use, as the photographer created the photograph & it is not entirely of the sculpture or work. Let's face it though, when someone donates a scuplture to a public place, they know it's going to be photographed. What about street sculptures that have been recently added to streets? Are they under copyright too? No, the reproduction of the exact same sculpture is illegal, but taking a photo of it is not. Taking a photo & saying it is your sculpture is, but giving credit to the artist is not. And besides, I've seen this argument before on here & I'm making the same points which they were... Spawn Man 05:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, this whole debate is silly. If I take a photograph of a sculpture, it doesn't matter how old the sculpture is or who made it. My photograph of it constitutes a brand new work and is copyrightable to me not the sculptor. Here is what our very own Featured Article Director has to say on the subject (from Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ):
- This is the first time we have come across this argument at FAC, though there are ten prior Featured dinosaur articles which use images of fossils and life reconstructions. Drawings and paintings of fossils are certainly protected under copyright law (as long as they are not copyright-expired) because they are an artistic interpretation of what the specimen looked like. Casts and moulds of fossil bones require no artistic skill (only excellent technical ability in reproducing the fossils faithfully), and the assembly of moulds of fossils is based on scientific evidence, not artistic effort (though artistic licence may come into play with less well-preserved genera, such as Protoavis). The feathers on Archaeopteryx are preserved in the fossil record; the sculptor is basing his or her work on actual fossils. Another sculptor who created an Archaeopteryx sculpture based on the same fossils and who ended up creating a very similar model would not be infringing on copyright because both artists based their work on the same fossils, which themselves are not under copyright protection. A photograph of a cast, mould, or sculpture of fossils is a derivative work. But the work it is derived from, unless artistic licence used to great extent, is a technical representation (a rigorous skeletal reconstruction), not a work of creative art. The only portion of the model which is clearly, undisputedly artistic in nature (based entirely on artistic interpretation) is the coloring of the feathers, since the coloring has not been preserved on any specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted.
-
-
- So there should be no problem whatsoever with the photos of the life reproductions, provided the photographers have released the images under free licenses. And the casts? Those aren't art; those are things that were found in the earth and dug up. — Brian (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A little further reading down that page, and it seems that the case isn't quite as clear-cut, but it appears that the laws of the UK do follow the "photo of 3D object on public display is new piece of art" argument, so we should be OK here. — Brian (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's quite clear this work required as much creative input as any art piece. The "freedom of panorama" in most counties applies only to the outdoors; it is broader in the UK but the legal wording is a bit unclear. At first I was skeptical, but after a fair amount of research at Artlaw, I believe that UK freedom of panorama does indeed apply to all permanent 3-D exhibits in galleries and museums (even those that charge admission, apparently). I'm very glad to have learned of this, as it could apply very broadly in the UK, to artistic works as well as scientific ones. Therefore, I drop my objection to the photos in this article, assuming that the archaeopteryx model was on permanent exhibition. Please note, however, that almost no other country (maybe Austria) has freedom of panorama laws that liberal.--Pharos 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Brian, Pharos, and Spawn Man. Brian, I really appreciate your clearing this up with the link to the FAQ. This is very good to know (and I don't think the discussion was at all silly), and may prove helpful with later Dinosaur FA Candidacies. User:Ballista took many of our photos of dinosaur life sculptures in UK museums, and although we always thought there was no problem using them, it's good to know we really can. That is a huge relief. Last night, I attempted to add a fair use rationale to the first picture, when I discovered it had been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons, which obviously doesn't allow Fair Use images. The image would have been deleted as a copyvio; it could have been moved back to en.wikipedia, but this is much better. Anyway, thanks everyone for the input. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's quite clear this work required as much creative input as any art piece. The "freedom of panorama" in most counties applies only to the outdoors; it is broader in the UK but the legal wording is a bit unclear. At first I was skeptical, but after a fair amount of research at Artlaw, I believe that UK freedom of panorama does indeed apply to all permanent 3-D exhibits in galleries and museums (even those that charge admission, apparently). I'm very glad to have learned of this, as it could apply very broadly in the UK, to artistic works as well as scientific ones. Therefore, I drop my objection to the photos in this article, assuming that the archaeopteryx model was on permanent exhibition. Please note, however, that almost no other country (maybe Austria) has freedom of panorama laws that liberal.--Pharos 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A little further reading down that page, and it seems that the case isn't quite as clear-cut, but it appears that the laws of the UK do follow the "photo of 3D object on public display is new piece of art" argument, so we should be OK here. — Brian (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- So there should be no problem whatsoever with the photos of the life reproductions, provided the photographers have released the images under free licenses. And the casts? Those aren't art; those are things that were found in the earth and dug up. — Brian (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah ha! I knew I was right, even if my wording was a bit off... :) Spawn Man 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, as it happens you were wrong. If this model was being exhibited in any country other than the UK, the image would not be free. Please keep that in mind.--Pharos 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was talking about the UK (Erm, yes... of course I was...), so therefore I am right. ;) God, no need to nit pick on who's right & wrong Pharos... Gosh! :) Spawn Man 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just trying to discourage you from considering all stuff in museums PD. No ones-upmanship intended, I assure you :)--Pharos 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was talking about the UK (Erm, yes... of course I was...), so therefore I am right. ;) God, no need to nit pick on who's right & wrong Pharos... Gosh! :) Spawn Man 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, as it happens you were wrong. If this model was being exhibited in any country other than the UK, the image would not be free. Please keep that in mind.--Pharos 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Support as a contributor and helper. I didn't want to support until individuals from both WP:Birds and WP:Dinosaurs had worked on the article and added their input. Now that that has happened, I feel comfortable supporting. This is one of the longest dinosaur articles, and it appears to me that all the important details have been covered: each of the specimens is discussed, there's a synonomy section which discusses the taxonomic mess, the Hoyle and Protoavis controversies are touched upon (but not given undue weight). I cannot judge the prose, as I'm too familiar with the text, so I will leave that to be judged by someone else. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support yet another good article on prehistoric animals (since this isn't technically a dinosaur...) igordebraga ≠ 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ha! All birds are dinosaurs; just not all dinosaurs are birds. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- God, not this debate again - I had enough of it during the Dinosaur FAC... ;) Spawn Man 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! All birds are dinosaurs; just not all dinosaurs are birds. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
[edit] William Monahan
Self-nomination: Hello. This article is about the recent Academy Award winning American Screenwriter for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan. It's a GA currently. I have previously brought the Aaron Sorkin article to featured status. I hope to do the same with this article. They follow a similar template, so you may find making comparisons between them useful. My hope is that Monahan's previous career as a man of letters will receive more attention if this article reaches featured status and appears on the main page. He has had an interesting career and I have enjoyed researching it. So let me know what you think. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.-BillDeanCarter 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It's discouraging to see an article come straightaway to FAC from passing GA; four hours before your nomination, the reviewer who passed the article GA recommended a thorough and independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many articles need a copyedit, but I believe this article has reached the quality of a featured article. I hope that the reviewers here at FAC, will help give the article a copyedit if they feel it needs it. Other than User:Fvasconcellos suggestion that it receives a copyedit, all his others suggestions were met and appreciated.-BillDeanCarter 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose 1a, 2. In addition to the copyedit concerns, the section Further information is a jumble having no relation to WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thank you for your comments and taking the time to read the article. I addressed your concern about the "Further information" section, but I'm not sure exactly what your concerns are in accordance with the rest of criteria 2. I think I took care of 2c and 2b by modify the "Further information" section to be a clearer "Further reading" section. How specifically does the article not meet criteria 2?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- On 1a - The article has to date been improved according to many independent copyedits at this point but as more criticism comes in I plan to make further improvements. All the facts are there though. Are there any sentences that jump out at you? Maybe one or two that you could point out?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose 1a, 2. In addition to the copyedit concerns, the section Further information is a jumble having no relation to WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many articles need a copyedit, but I believe this article has reached the quality of a featured article. I hope that the reviewers here at FAC, will help give the article a copyedit if they feel it needs it. Other than User:Fvasconcellos suggestion that it receives a copyedit, all his others suggestions were met and appreciated.-BillDeanCarter 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is well referenced, so I don't think there is any trouble about unsourced material on a living person. I'm not an english major, so I cant say it has 'amazing prose' or whatever the criterion says but it wasn't stop and go or abrupt; rather all the sections seemed to go in a logical order. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Quick comments
- The lead still needs improvement, particularly stylistic. Also, a redlink in the lead immediately throws me off; IMHO, mentioning an ongoing event in the lead is not a very good idea, but if you want to keep it, it would look better if you delinked the film title and added a little bit of context (e.g., "He is currently working on the screenplay for Penetration, an adaptation of...in collaboration with director Ridley Scott.")
-
- Done I did a copyedit of the lead and removed mention of the ongoing event.
-
- The article has improved, but more copy editing is the way to go here. After another read, I find this article to be nicely comprehensive, but the overall style is still lacking; the first criterion to define a Featured Article is "the prose is compelling, even brilliant."
-
- It's true. I'm running out of vocabulary for this article. That's what I've enjoyed seeing from other editors, the addition of words that I know but wouldn't have chosen. I hope others can continue to help me out in this area.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The amount of redlinks bothers me, especially since they are to terms I would like to see explained! Production write-through contract, turnaround deal... I can infer meanings from the context, but readers shouldn't have to infer anything.
-
- I removed many of the other redlinks, because they will most likely never be filled in and probably shouldn't be. As for the two redlinks you would like to see explained. I would too. But they're entertainment lawyer-like terms, which I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Law about, and they filled in one of the redlinks: first-look producing deal. The two remaining entertainment lawyer contracts will possibly remain in the red for a while. I don't want to de-link them, but I also can do little to fill them in.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done Well, done as in the amount of redlinks is no longer an eyesore. I put together a stub for production write-through contract. The other one will hopefully be forthcoming over time.-BillDeanCarter 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I removed many of the other redlinks, because they will most likely never be filled in and probably shouldn't be. As for the two redlinks you would like to see explained. I would too. But they're entertainment lawyer-like terms, which I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Law about, and they filled in one of the redlinks: first-look producing deal. The two remaining entertainment lawyer contracts will possibly remain in the red for a while. I don't want to de-link them, but I also can do little to fill them in.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- In "Becoming a producer": "Scorsese had originally hired in 2001 former Rolling Stones writer..." don't you mean Rolling Stone magazine? :) Also, the prose in this sentence is a pretty good example of what needs work here.
-
- Thanks. I corrected the spelling of Rolling Stone magazine. This paragraph is basically about deals, and Monahan's production company. I'll work on it. I think the solution might be to condense the last two paragraphs into one, and improve the prose from there.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I completely rewrote the section. It's significantly improved. Hopefully up to par with the rest of the article.-BillDeanCarter 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I corrected the spelling of Rolling Stone magazine. This paragraph is basically about deals, and Monahan's production company. I'll work on it. I think the solution might be to condense the last two paragraphs into one, and improve the prose from there.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- There are some pretty unnecessary links in the "Writing process" section, such as to screenwriter, motion pictures, film director, etc.
-
- DoneI de-linked some of the terms, especially motion pictures, but the other two you mention are very important terms for the section. The writing process section is about screenwriters and how they work with film director and studios.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's more, but I'll have to read the article again more thoroughly. I'm very busy today, so I'll see what I can do later. Fvasconcellos 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Okay. Thanks for your many comments. The problems seem to remain in the prose.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The nominator of this article asked me to look over its prose. I would suggest that this article be sent to the League of Copyeditors or that the editors find a trusted wikipedia editor to copyedit for them. The prose needs a lot of work. I will give detailed examples from the lead and the first sections only.
- Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He went on to contribute to the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy. - These two sentences suggest that Monaham went to NYC to be a jounralist and then moved on to write for these particular magazines - that doesn't quite make sense. Didn't he write for them because he was a journalist?
- This was someone else's copyedit. I changed it to "After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk and Maxim. He was also a writer and editor at Spy magazine in its final years."
- A lead is supposed to summarize, so how about: ""After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, Talk, Maxim and Spy magazine."
- Done Okay. I put exactly that in there. He was also an editor at Spy but I guess that's for the text.-BillDeanCarter 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- A lead is supposed to summarize, so how about: ""After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, Talk, Maxim and Spy magazine."
- Monahan broke into Hollywood in 1998 - "broke into" is too colloquial for an encyclopedia
- I changed the sentence to "Monahan went to work in Hollywood in 1998, when Warner Bros. bought the film rights to Light House: A Trifle, which had not yet been published, and contracted him to adapt it to the screen."
- How about: "Monahan moved to Hollywood in 1998 when he was hired by Warner Bros. to adapt his novel, Light House: A Trifle, for the screen." (if that is still correct)
- Done I don't know that he moved to Hollywood. He may have been living in a hotel, and commuting back to the North shore. I believe he lives in MA still.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about: "Monahan moved to Hollywood in 1998 when he was hired by Warner Bros. to adapt his novel, Light House: A Trifle, for the screen." (if that is still correct)
- released to theaters in 2005 - "released in theaters"?
- Done Okay. It's consistently "released in theaters" throughout the article now. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- His second realized screenplay was The Departed, a film which earned him a WGA award and an Academy award for Best Adapted Screenplay. - "realized" is unfamiliar diction for many people; also was it the film that earned him the award or the screenplay?
- "realized" was someone else's copyedit. I reverted to "produced screenplay". I mention how he won the award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Both awards were for Best Adapted Screenplay. Is it not clear? Does the WGA award seem to stand alone?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is implied that he won for the screenplay, but the sentence actually states "a film which earned him..." - should it not say, "a screenplay which earned him..."? By the way, is there another word for screenplay? It appears a lot in this article. Nothing is coming to me at the moment, but perhaps you know of something. Is a script different from a screenplay?
- "Shooting script" is good, "first draft", "rewrite", but screenplay is the best word to use when the script is over and done with. Maybe there is a synonym. I can't think of one. You never know.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is implied that he won for the screenplay, but the sentence actually states "a film which earned him..." - should it not say, "a screenplay which earned him..."? By the way, is there another word for screenplay? It appears a lot in this article. Nothing is coming to me at the moment, but perhaps you know of something. Is a script different from a screenplay?
- Monahan strongly believes that writing should be authored and is not a fan of the collaborative model in which multiple screenwriters write competing drafts for a film. - doesn't quite make sense; all writing is authored; try starting the sentence with "Monahan strongly believes that screenwriting should not be collaborative but rather..." or something like that
- Done Okay. I did the reversal.
- He had a Catholic upbringing and lived all over the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister. - how about simply, "He was brought up Catholic" and what does "lived all over" mean?
- Done Okay, I changed to "He had a Catholic upbringing. Over the years he frequently moved, living in many of the suburban communities of the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister."
- How about "his family frequently moved" (then you can cut the mother/sister stuff out)
- But what is the family? Is his sister and mother, because he wasn't living with the father. It's also more informative. Now you know he has a sister.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about "his family frequently moved" (then you can cut the mother/sister stuff out)
- The "Early Years" section is choppy - some sentences could be joined together in order to make the narrative of his life flow more seamlessly.
- Could you point out an example of two sentences that could be joined? I guess these two sentences, "His interest in movies began at age seven, when it occurred to him that a screenwriter was behind the story in Lawrence of Arabia. Monahan wrote his first screenplay at age twelve." could be tied together, but it doesn't quite work for me. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about these: "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, and would read frequently from his father's extensive library. Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare." into "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, where he would immerse himself in his father's extensive book collection; Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare's plays." (might change meaning a little - be sure it is accurate)
- Done No, it's accurate. Okay, I put it in. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about these: "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, and would read frequently from his father's extensive library. Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare." into "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, where he would immerse himself in his father's extensive book collection; Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare's plays." (might change meaning a little - be sure it is accurate)
- After graduation, Monahan's ambition was to be a man of letters, which required a commitment to essays, criticism, reviews, novels, poetry and biographies. - "which required a commitment to" is vague - what about something like "which would have required him to master the genres of the essay, the review, the novel, poetry and the biography" or something like that
- DoneI word for word put in your copyedit. It reads better. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that has distinguished him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught - verb is awkward - perhaps "distinguishes him as"? although "distinguish" is not really the right word here
- I changed it to "distinguishes". Classified him, marked him, came to mind but they don't quite fit as well. It has distinguished him. No one else, not even the FBI figured out what he did. Do you have a better verb?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- "establish"? [14] is a good online thesaurus (you mentioned you were running out of words)
- Done I've been using a thesaurus here and there. Establish doesn't work for me. I would use "marked him" but to me it sounds like he got involved in witchcraft. From my adventures through the thesaurus "distinguish" seems to be the most apt word.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- "establish"? [14] is a good online thesaurus (you mentioned you were running out of words)
- The next year, Monahan wrote a provocative article at the Press on heroin. - what made it provocative?
- I changed this to "The next year, Monahan wrote an article at the Press on heroin that provoked a rash of letters from readers."
- This still doesn't explain why it was provocative. What were the readers writing in about?
- Probably pro and con the article. This is a secondary source that mentioned his article. I'd love to read it, but atm it's not available.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- This still doesn't explain why it was provocative. What were the readers writing in about?
- It looks to me like you don't do justice to his novel. A novel, especially a "critically acclaimed" one, as you say this one is, is difficult to write. It is not on the same level with magazine stories.
- I later on mention more about the novel in Screenwriting career, how it got delayed, and later in writing process I talk about how he prefers movies to novels because you have a cultural effect. His novel was acclaimed but probably had the readership of one of his magazine articles. He eventually took the novel off the market.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I saw that, but I still feel it is downplayed. Perhaps a quote from a review?
- Done Okay. That's a good idea. I changed the sentence to this: "In 2000, Monahan's first novel Light House: A Trifle was published and garnered critical acclaim; The New York Times wrote that "Monahan's cocksure prose gallops along," and BookPage Fiction called Monahan "a worthy successor to Kingsley Amis." I'm unfamiliar with the proper use of a semicolon so I hope I got the sentence right.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I saw that, but I still feel it is downplayed. Perhaps a quote from a review?
- You seem to have copied sentences directly from the article into the lead - try to summarize in the lead.
- Okay. I'll see what I can do.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please integrate his marriage into the chronology of his life rather than relegating it to a little line after his list of works.
- This was done in the Aaron Sorkin article and it wasn't me but another who thought it was the way to go. I've since followed that style, and I want to keep the layout of my trilogy of articles on screenwriters similar.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to get into a big feminist debate here, but it is awfully condescending to relegate his domestic life to this little line at the end of the article. If this were an article about a female screenwriter or director, I have a feeling that her marriage(s) would not be placed so inconspicuously (I have noticed a strong trend in biographies of nineteenth-century dead, white men to do this same thing but in biographies of dead, white women, to prominently feature their marriages). If you don't agree with this argument, at least consider that, structurally, it breaks the continuity of the article (which is strongly chronological).
- The thing is that his family life doesn't fit in with Screenwriting career. I would have to pop in with comments like "he got married this year," and "first baby here", and "second baby here". There isn't much to say about his Personal life. It comes together better if you can read it all in context in a section. I can't see how women or men are slighted by having the family stuff gathered into a section, or brought up in the other sections organically.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- See Johannes Kepler for a good example. My point is, women's biographies do not usually separate their careers from their families while men's biographies often do. That's what makes it sexist - the overall pattern. Awadewit 07:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- But Kepler is then an exception to this overall pattern? The thing is with Kepler there's 2 marriages, and there's a lot to be said. Monahan's wife's name is unknown, and all that's known is that he has two kids. I will give this some more thought.-BillDeanCarter 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please say that I am hearing you wrong. Please tell me that you didn't mean that you want to follow the sexist pattern just because it is a pattern. Just because there is not very much information does not mean you cannot work it in. Awadewit 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am coming to a method in which I could include this marriage stuff. His daughter was born during the production of Kingdom which I talk about at length. His son was born during his man of letters years, and he got married before or after the deal for Kingdom which might have had to do with achieving that success. But am I against newborns? Am I against wives? No. And saying that this is sexism is a huge generalization. I would like to hear what others think about whether this should or shouldn't be done before I make these modifications.-BillDeanCarter 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'm generally in favor of including it in the body, especially if you can connect the events to changes in his life and not just as standalone facts, though I understand that it can seem out-of-context to talk about children when we're discussing someone's life in terms of their stylistic periods. MarkBuckles (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am coming to a method in which I could include this marriage stuff. His daughter was born during the production of Kingdom which I talk about at length. His son was born during his man of letters years, and he got married before or after the deal for Kingdom which might have had to do with achieving that success. But am I against newborns? Am I against wives? No. And saying that this is sexism is a huge generalization. I would like to hear what others think about whether this should or shouldn't be done before I make these modifications.-BillDeanCarter 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please say that I am hearing you wrong. Please tell me that you didn't mean that you want to follow the sexist pattern just because it is a pattern. Just because there is not very much information does not mean you cannot work it in. Awadewit 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- But Kepler is then an exception to this overall pattern? The thing is with Kepler there's 2 marriages, and there's a lot to be said. Monahan's wife's name is unknown, and all that's known is that he has two kids. I will give this some more thought.-BillDeanCarter 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- See Johannes Kepler for a good example. My point is, women's biographies do not usually separate their careers from their families while men's biographies often do. That's what makes it sexist - the overall pattern. Awadewit 07:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is that his family life doesn't fit in with Screenwriting career. I would have to pop in with comments like "he got married this year," and "first baby here", and "second baby here". There isn't much to say about his Personal life. It comes together better if you can read it all in context in a section. I can't see how women or men are slighted by having the family stuff gathered into a section, or brought up in the other sections organically.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to get into a big feminist debate here, but it is awfully condescending to relegate his domestic life to this little line at the end of the article. If this were an article about a female screenwriter or director, I have a feeling that her marriage(s) would not be placed so inconspicuously (I have noticed a strong trend in biographies of nineteenth-century dead, white men to do this same thing but in biographies of dead, white women, to prominently feature their marriages). If you don't agree with this argument, at least consider that, structurally, it breaks the continuity of the article (which is strongly chronological).
<outdented>There are 4 facts that would have to be weaved into the body. The 1998 birth of his son, which would be out of place in the list of articles, novels, etc... he did in his man of letters years. Then the 2001 wedding, which could go in many places. His daughter's birth, is the only fact that has a place, alongside the production of Kingdom. The fourth fact, is where he resides, which I can't quite position anywhere in the text yet. Is it really worth it to break up the family of facts, and haphazardly spread them around the article? I mean, Awadewit talks about a kind of sexism, but what about breaking up the family? This way, you see in an orderly and contextual fashion exactly what kind of people he has around him; his family. I have tried briefly to put together an edit that works, but it seems clumsy. If it is really a simple matter of style then I won't do it. But if there really is something wrong here, with writing up a section about his family then I'll change it. What's the general consensus among Wikipedians?-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I incorporated his family into the body of the text. Let me know if it flows, and if it doesn't and you can help please edit the article with choice words you think will help. It really does improve the article. Whether or not the article was ever sexist is still up for debate. The facts were placed as neatly as I could, but I remain unable to place where he resides. I kept the "Family life" section, because why not? It has a bit more information, and it's interesting. Brings everything together.-BillDeanCarter 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's not continue with this debate. We can continue with it on talk pages, if you wish. I happen to think it is important. Let's make it a debate about style. Sections with two sentences? I do not think that sections with two sentences have been making a go of it here at FAC. A section has to have a better reason to exist than that. The section looks wimpy, if you will. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- On a side note, what do you think of including still frames from the movies?Awadewit 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't justify it. I did what you're talking about in the Aaron Sorkin article and during FAC I had to remove 10 images down to 0. Eventually User:ShadowHalo and I found free use images and the article is as it is now.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps ShadowHalo could help you again. I'm not quite sure why single frames are not fair use. I mean what percentage of the movie are they? How many thousand/million frames are there in a movie? Anyway, I thought that it would add to the page. Are movie posters fair use? At least that would add some color. The quotation boxes are a nice addition, by the way. (Insert rant on copyright law here.)
- I don't think it would improve the article. It would only make the article look pretty. And I'm scared of the "fair use" debates that would flare up.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I saw my name, so here's my input. I think ten images was excessive, but I think it would be easy to justify using one or two. For example, there is more than sufficient critical commentary on The Departed to use a cover (or film poster, I'm not sure how films are usually treated). I'll go ahead and write up a fair use rationale for the image if you'd like to add it. ShadowHalo 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. That would be good. I guess the quote in the section "Working scripts through production and after" would move to the "Writing process" section to make room for the poster or whatnot.-BillDeanCarter 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like there's room there. I added it in to show what I mean; if you'd rather put it or the quotation somewhere else, feel free. ShadowHalo 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. That would be good. I guess the quote in the section "Working scripts through production and after" would move to the "Writing process" section to make room for the poster or whatnot.-BillDeanCarter 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I saw my name, so here's my input. I think ten images was excessive, but I think it would be easy to justify using one or two. For example, there is more than sufficient critical commentary on The Departed to use a cover (or film poster, I'm not sure how films are usually treated). I'll go ahead and write up a fair use rationale for the image if you'd like to add it. ShadowHalo 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it would improve the article. It would only make the article look pretty. And I'm scared of the "fair use" debates that would flare up.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps ShadowHalo could help you again. I'm not quite sure why single frames are not fair use. I mean what percentage of the movie are they? How many thousand/million frames are there in a movie? Anyway, I thought that it would add to the page. Are movie posters fair use? At least that would add some color. The quotation boxes are a nice addition, by the way. (Insert rant on copyright law here.)
<outdented> Done It looks good. I didn't think there would be room, but there is. Thanks once again for the help.-BillDeanCarter 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Made some minor copyedits myself. It looks to me llke this has been pretty heavily copyedited since some of these comments were made. It's starting to look like a FA. I'd still like to be able to have stubs for any redlinks - it won't make main page with those there.MarkBuckles (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I filled in the last two remaining redlinks which were turnaround deal and Penetration (film). I like the "Family life" section. It's an improvement, as were the copyedits. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- More comments on the language.
- Tragically, the theatrical release of Kingdom of Heaven was pared down from Ridley Scott's original 3-hour cut after a preview screening convinced Scott the film was too long. - is it really "tragic" that a movie was cut down? tragedies usually involve death (in the theater, as I am sure you are aware, tragedies end with death and comedies end with marriage)
- Done Tragic can be used to describe a sense of tragedy, and in the most dramatic of terms it was a tragedy that a good film was butchered by it's own director. Clearly not encyclopedic so I did a copyedit that clarifies things.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The film was poorly received by critics when it was released in theaters in 2005. - can you find some other place to put the date and tell us what the critics said?
- Done part of the copyedit.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ridley Scott would later remark that he got carried away with cutting the film in the editing room and learned that "the enemy is previews" because it's tantamount to asking an inexperienced group of people to be film critics. - I think you need to add the word "screening" into Scott's quotation or outside the quotation or something because the general reader thinks of previews as the little trailers before the movie
- Done I clarify that "the enemy is previews" because these test screenings are tantamount to...
- Kingdom later got a reappraisal on DVD, in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of material that came from Monahan's shooting script. - "got"?
- Done Kingdom was reappraised on DVD...
- perhaps Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I reworded to, "Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of footage previously shot from Monahan's shooting script."-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- perhaps Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The director's cut earned the critical acclaim that the truncated version was denied. - odd use of the passive here - you act as if it was entitled to the critical acclaim (but of course if it was truncated and crappy, why should it have been praised?)
- Done I paraphrased a critic.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Critics can still write poorly. :) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed. Monahan never watched the Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs that he was adapting, and instead opted to work from an English translation of the Chinese script in order to create an original interpretation. - I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have not seen this movie, read about it or heard about it (I live in a bubble). Why are we now talking about Interal Affairs? How is it connected to The Departed?
- Done
- Jack Nicholson, who played the part - "who was going to play the part"?
- Done made the change
- post-sexual - is that a word? find it somewhere and I'll retract my objection
- Done it's a word. it's used all over the internet but I changed it to "jaded with sexual intercourse".-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Monahan gives credit to Nicholson's notes for improving the character of the mob boss Costello by sexualizing him. - awkward - most important part of the sentence is "sexualizing him" - make it more prominent
- Done Monahan credits Nicholson's notes for sexualizing the character of the mob boss Costello.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- As of 2007, Monahan is working on a film treatment for a follow-up to The Departed, which may be a prequel or a sequel. - sentences requires the "either...or" construction - "which may either be a prequel or a sequel" OR, if you don't like to split infinitives "which may be either a prequel or a sequel"
- Done used the split infinitive.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- which gives the studio the first right of first refusal on any films produced by Henceforth - is the first "first" necessary? it seemed confusing
- Done I thought it was confusing too, but it's saying the first ROFR. You can have second ROFRs and third ROFRs. It's more accurate this way.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- How weird. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Monahan is passably familiar with the various stages of the filmmaking process - "passably familiar" is something you say when you want to deprecate someone - is that what you want to do? perhaps "has some familiarity"
- Done I see no evidence that "passably familiar" is used in a deprecating sense. In fact all my google searches show that it's used in exactly the context I've used it. But "has some familiarity" sounds less stuffy. I made the change.
- Well, there are a lot of poorly written webpages out there. I've would've been more convinced if you had said The New York Times uses it this way or something like that, by the way. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- raising the finances - there is a better way to phrase this, but I can't think of it right now
- There may be, but it's a common phrasing and I even found it used in this exact context.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Monahan will be the one adapting - "will also"?
- Done sure.
- Monahan will executive produce and write the - is this a verb? why not just "produce"? or "will be the executive producer and writer for.."
- Executive produce is a verb, and it's different than produce. He's writing the adaptation and executive producing the film. The sentence sounds best as it is.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, it just sounds weird to a reader not familiar with filmspeak. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is Monahan's second adaptation of a Hong Kong film. - is this typical filmspeak? is it like saying Bollywood film?
- Hong Kong films are in a league of their own. It's more familiar filmspeak than Bollywood film.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wikilinked into the FA on Hong Kong action cinema. As further proof there are stubs for Hong Kong film actors/ HK film directors / HK film producers. There's even a nice article on the Cinema of Hong Kong which with a little work could be an FA as well.-BillDeanCarter 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wikilinked into the FA on Hong Kong action cinema. As further proof there are stubs for Hong Kong film actors/ HK film directors / HK film producers. There's even a nice article on the Cinema of Hong Kong which with a little work could be an FA as well.-BillDeanCarter 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the popular English musical group The Rolling Stones. - "the popular English musical group"? even I who know NOTHING about popular music AT ALL know that the Rolling Stones is one of the most popular bands in history; this seems to be underselling them
- Done retitled them the influential British Invasion group.
- that the entire second half of Monahan's shooting script was based on the first 105 pages of his book, as well as noting that Kingdom of Heaven is the title of the second chapter in his book - awkward
- Done broke it up some.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know why Reston didn't file a lawsuit? I saw this story when it came out. You make it sound as if Monahan and Fox were not at fault and that is why no suit was filed. But I remember reading that Reston decided not to file, not because he believed that Reston and Fox were not at fault but because he believed he couldn't win.
- I couldn't find any mention that he came to some decision. He simply didn't pursue the matter. He never filed charges. Reston made his claims, and 20th century fox made their counter-claims. I searched and found nothing. Reston doesn't talk about it in subsequent interviews. What can you do?-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- he ended up in Hollywood to adapt his first novel into a film - "ended up"?
- Done "went to"
- His perception is that a writer can retain the authorship of their screenplay if a powerful film director supports the writer, and if at the same time the writer has strong enough ideas that he can successfully advocate his vision, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers. - "perception" seems a bit odd, how about "view" or "opinion"; also, sentence is a bit long and convoluted - make it strong and clear
- Done changed sentence to "Monahan's view is that a screenwriter can retain the authorship of their screenplay if they have the support of a powerful film director and successfully advocate their ideas, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers."-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- He prefers writing screenplays over other forms of writing - how about "He prefers writing screenplays over other genres" - gets rid of repetition of "writing"
- Done as you worded.
- he has reached a level of ability where he is no longer self-conscious about his writing - "level of ability" is odd - in fact, this whole idea is strange - the quote from him would be nice
- The quote is, "As far as getting notes is concerned, I‘ve spent thirty-odd years studying English drama, so I’m personally at a point where I’m post-conscious about craft, but that’s a pricey personal evolution, that’s a thing I chose to do, and you have to remember not everyone’s had time for it, any more than you can expect some other guy off the street to know kung fu or biochemistry." I'd like to summarize how he no longer second guesses his writing decisions. Is there a traditional way of describing such? I'd like to not paraphrase or quote.-BillDeanCarter 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would include at least the word "post-conscious" - that is an odd word. Hard to paraphrase that. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I reworded to, "He has studied English drama for over thirty years and has stated that because of those efforts he has reached a level of ability where he is "post-conscious about craft." I find level of ability is apt. I considered skill level, but it doesn't sound right.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- These words prefixed with post- are his style of writing. He uses that and some other words quite often. So probably in this article any post- prefixed word should be paraphrased henceforth.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would include at least the word "post-conscious" - that is an odd word. Hard to paraphrase that. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would move the "List of writings" back over - the list is not that long yet.
- The list is 3x - 10x as long. The hope is that some will derive a measure of pleasure from adding to the list. It's a mess atm, and my idea is to make it a featured list eventually.-BillDeanCarter 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Perhaps list it as an imcomplete list, then? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I did what other incomplete lists do, I put {{expand_list}} templates where the part of the list is incomplete. Actually, the practice has been to put one incomplete template in the article and be done with it, but I placed a few of them in the sections that were incomplete, so that at least it's apparent which parts are complete. If there were a {{expand_list-sect}} template I'd use it instead. Anyways, I was looking for a way to do exactly that. So it's good now.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Perhaps list it as an imcomplete list, then? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole piece is getting better. Revision is hard work. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. All comments addressed. I'm going to take a small wikibreak of a day or so and then check back in with this article and its nomination to see how it actually looks.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This article's prose has greatly improved since its first appearance here due to the editor's tireless efforts to revise it for clarity and accessibility. I cannot speak to the page's comprehensiveness since I do not know about the subject, but there is certainly a lot of detailed information here about Monahan's films and theories regarding screenwriting. While this article does not reference any scholarly sources, I do not see that as a reason to object to this article becoming an FA there are no scholarly sources yet on this person (I did a search of all of the major databases, JSTOR, MUSE, MLA, etc.) It will be a few years before scholars have a chance to publish on these films. The information is thus well-sourced from the sources available. (There does not seem to be a policy to wait for the research to come out or anything like that.) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Phew, that was a tough one. Kudos on your work—the article has improved a lot. I still think the prose could use more work, but I can't put my finger on anything specific. Perhaps a final once-over by the League of Copyeditors would be a good idea? Anyway, after a more thorough read, I found all my concerns have been addressed, and one thing is undeniable about this article: its comprehensiveness. I think we can safely say that, despite its (now very minor) shortcomings, this article has become an excellent resource. Fvasconcellos 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments. Some remarks to a generally very nice article:
- Thanks for the comments Yanni.-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "He had a Catholic upbringing." This too short sentence in the middle of longer ones makes the prose a bit choppy there IMO.
- Done I reworded to, "Monahan was born in Dorchester, Boston to an Irish-American family and was raised Irish Catholic." Irish Catholic... maybe the Irish sounds redundant but it's in fact a specific thing.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught." I'm not a native English speaker, so I may be wrong, but I'm wondering: is there a mixture of tenses here or am I wrong? And why "the" alternative weekly newspaper? Is there just one alternative weekly newspaper? Or is New York Press an alternative newspaper? And why don't you say that in the previous sentence?
- Done This was brought up above by User:Awadewit and so the tenses were changed. I could write it with either tense, so I'll let someone else chime in here. Originally I used alternative weekly newspaper just to spice up the language. I reworded it so that alternative weekly newspaper goes in the previous sentence as information, and replaced it with the shorthand Press. So here it is, "He moved to New York City and contributed to the alternative weekly newspaper New York Press and the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy.[3][4] In 1995, Monahan wrote a cover story for the New York Press that used the crimes of John Salvi to attack the Catholic Church's teachings; six months later, he wrote another article at the Press that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught."-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Monahan ended up winning two Best Adapted Screenplay awards for The Departed from the Writers Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences." "Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed, an adaptation of the Hong Kong action film Infernal Affairs." I have a sense of repetition here. You tell us exactly the same things in the previous section, and with almost the same wording. One section is not seperated from the other. Alltogether constitute the same article, and they must interweave and co-exist in harmony.
- Hmm, tricky. It was a previous suggestion that I mention his awards in the previous section. It was a word-for-word copyedit from the talk page for the article. It has to be in the section 'Working scripts through production and after'. Should I remove it from the previous section then? It was Fvasconcellos who made the request. The previous section is meant to reflect the workload he picked up before any of his movies were made. So it's not necessary to mention his awards, or reflect on how things turned out in the future. I could remove them. What's the consensus?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I would leave them in the previous section, and not repeat them again in "Working scripts", but this may just be a personal preference.--Yannismarou 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think it would be most relevant in the working scripts through production and after. You get to see how he hired a publicist to ensure he got those awards.. or at least had the best chance of getting those awards. And then voila!, he gets them. Without the voila! the paragraph becomes significantly neutered. So I would have to remove them from the previous section, if at all. I'm ambivalent about this.-BillDeanCarter 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "In return Henceforth received the film rights to produce John Pearson's true crime novel The Gamblers, which Warner Bros. had acquired the rights to." Maybe a bit repetitive the prose here, but not a big deal of course.
- I'm working through the many possible permutations of this sentence. I'll get back to you on this.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "The project originated at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films.[52] Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney. In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts. Scorsese recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play from Disney to Paramount.[52]" IMO the prose is getting a bit choppy here.
- Done I reworded to, "Monahans' other assignment is to rewrite a screenplay about the history of the rock music business called The Long Play. The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the influential British Invasion group The Rolling Stones, and was nurtured at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films. Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney but recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play to Paramount.[52] In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts, and Monahan will now do a rewrite of his own."
- I'll see what I can do here.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Personal life": I don't like this section. For the following reasons: 1) It is toooo stubby. 2) It is incomplete, and its purpose is not clear; you repeat the same personal info spread in the previous sections about his personal life (marriage, children). By this spreading you initially gave the sense to the reader that he will not have to read a "personal life" section (actually, while reading I was thinking: "why doesn't he makes a proper "personal life" section, and spreads the info around?). But suddenly, the reader sees the section with partial repetitive information he already read, and wonders: why didn't the writer collect all the info about his personal life here, and spread it around, and then to repeat it here again? At least, this is what I wondered!--Yannismarou 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on which position you take. Should I remove the information from the body of the article and place it only in the "Personal life" section? Or should I kill off the "Personal life" section altogether? If I kill off the "Personal life" section I am contemplating summarizing it very briefly as a last sentence in the lead. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I went ahead and did this. Check out the edited clearly labeled "I could be reverted"-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
QUESTION: When I talk about his writings in the "Man of letters" section does it sound like these were the only articles he wrote? Or does it sound like I'm only mentioning the notable ones?-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I get the impression that you are mentioning the notable ones, and he may have written more of them.--Yannismarou 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh! And I support. I think that despite some minor issued still open, this is a very nice article.--Yannismarou 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support since this article is well-written and well-referenced; it's a job well done. Cliff smith 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I was reading the article, and I thought "this should be nominated"... then I checked the talk page.--Orthologist 15:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
[edit] Coeliac disease
Previously nominated 2005-10-08 (old nom). Over the last few months there's been a lot of work on this article, initially from myself but later with the help of Samir and Pdeitiker, amongst others. It now has a lot of supporting content, bags of references, and is fairly well organised. When I'd one a lot of editing, I asked for external expert review by Prof Paul Ciclitira of King's College, London (the author of the UK guidelines on the disease and also principal contributor to the American/AGA guidelines); it was reviewed by one of his researchers and found to be in good form. I think it's ready for featured status. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support from nominator. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Appears excellent, after a cursory look (I will read it more thoroughly later). I am, however, slightly troubled by the seven unsourced statements I counted (tagged with {{fact}}). I'd also like to see more of the redlinks go, such as avenin, zonulin, radiation enteritis (is that a distinct entity? If so we should have an article on it :) and prolyl endopeptidase, even if just stubs. The prose in the third paragraph of the "Genetics" subsection could also use a bit of polishing IMHO. Fvasconcellos 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of those articles are on subjects I personally don't know a lot about. I'll have a look at the genetics bit. Generally, this tends to be technical stuff that is exceptionally hard to explain in layperson's terms. JFW | T@lk 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick stubs, you don't have to create them yourself if you're not familiar! I'm more concerned about the unsourced statements, and I get that the Genetics bit is difficult to explain—it's not bad at all, I just felt it could be better. :) Fvasconcellos 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done Stubs were easy. I'd just been lazy. Any help with the unsourced statements and the genetics stuff is appreciated. JFW | T@lk 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've added some quick citations for the Screening subsection, thanks to this nice review and a PubMed search. I hope they're appropriate, as I only had access to abstracts. I'll see what else I can come up with tomorrow. Fvasconcellos 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of those articles are on subjects I personally don't know a lot about. I'll have a look at the genetics bit. Generally, this tends to be technical stuff that is exceptionally hard to explain in layperson's terms. JFW | T@lk 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it's a great article, congrat for the writers. Only some suggestions:
- "approximately 5% of patients diagnosed with IBS may have underlying coeliac disease." (I couldn't find a reference for it)
- The Malabsorption-related section, the Epidemiology and the Screening and case finding sections contain several citation needed templates.
- The reference No. 19 belongs to the whole Four serological blood tests exist for coeliac disease subsection?
- "Many doctors consider coeliac disease..." (weasel words?
- In the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints section, there is an external link that should be a reference.
- Additional external links? the leading charity working for people with coeliac disease; www.celiac.com; Celiac Disease Foundation
- Thank in advance. NCurse work 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is a very comprehensive article, and well referenced. It is, however, a bit dry to read. There's a lot of detail but perhaps not enough sentences that summarise or conclude. So the reader has to work hard to extract the information and may miss things. Some of the "Blood tests" section may be too detailed for a general reader. The 2nd bullet-point in particular is eye-glazing and overlong. The "Pathophysiology" section is tough going and may put readers off reading the later sections, which are easier and important (could it be moved). It would be helpful to have an intro paragraph in "Genetics" for the lay reader that avoids the long strings of letter/number codes, which just make you want to skim. I suspect the information in the third paragraph is beyond and of little interest to those without specialist medical genetics training – and therefore should be greatly simplified and/or some detail dropped. Most readers won't persevere with this section and so come away with nothing, whereas I'm sure there are many points they could grasp. Some of the linked refs (and eMedicine articles) are easier to read in places, despite being aimed at professionals. Perhaps a copyeditor can make the language more engaging and expand the audience. Colin°Talk 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your help is appreciated. Perhaps you could identify the worst examples of dry prose and lack of summary. It always remains hard to gauge exactly how much we can expect from the general readership.
- The driest prose is generally found where bullet-point-lists are used rather than paragraphs, and where there are single-sentence paragraphs. It reaches PowerPoint terseness occasionally. For example: "Miscarriage and infertility", which isn't a sentence. This teases the reader with a hint of information but is unsatisfying. I'd want to know how common and serious those problems are, and whether they go away on the diet. I think almost all of these bullet lists could be changed to prose (an exception is the Marsh classification, which is an ordered list). Merely eliding the bullets to form one paragraph won't fix it, though. The style needs to change from just listing facts.
- An example of inadequate summary is Diagnosis. It currently says "There are several tests that can be used to assist diagnosis." This is too vague. From reading the whole article, and some of the refs, there are some main points to get across:
- Blood tests are cheap, easy, sensitive and specific. This is often done first (I haven't manage to find why the "order of the tests" might be different. Perhaps if there is little doubt, it is only required for establishing baseline levels).
- A small intestinal biopsy is widely considered mandatory to confirm the diagnosis. (Clearly this is an unpleasant procedure)
- There are several blood tests. More than one kind may be required. Older tests were not as reliable.
- The tests must be done while the person is on a gluten diet (as currently noted).
- Both the blood tests and the biopsy may be repeated after starting the GFD to confirm its effect.
- (If I've got some of those wrong, it is not important for this discussion.) I think it would help to look at each section (e.g. Genetics) and consider what key points you want to get across. Explain these points, rather than expecting the reader to collate and weigh the individual micro-facts. Colin°Talk 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the serology content is not adequately sourced. I will work on this. That will also be a good opportunity to make the prose more digestable.
- Follow-up: I've emailed Dr Dieterich, first author of the study that identified tTG as epitope. She recommended PMID 12959764, of which I will order the fulltext as soon as possible. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pathophysiology should remain where it is. I agree the genetics material is technical (Pdeitiker seems to have a research interest here), but the "treatment" section makes no sense without it. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your help is appreciated. Perhaps you could identify the worst examples of dry prose and lack of summary. It always remains hard to gauge exactly how much we can expect from the general readership.
- Comment. I see a lot of work still needed, some which can be guided by WP:MEDMOS (for example, there's no prognosis section). Some of the sections are unnecessarily inaccessible to laypersons. Attention to Wikilinking is needed (the first I noticed was IgG—the first occurrence isn't linked, although it is linked later). An independent copyedit may help; for example, the and clause doesn't flow well here in the lead—Symptoms may include diarrhoea, failure to thrive (in children) and fatigue, but these may be absent and associated symptoms in all other organ systems have been described.) It would be helpful if a section heading other than "Miscellaneous" could be found. Prose problems in this sentence: However, the variety of gastrointestinal symptoms that may be present in patients with coeliac disease is great, and even constipation is seen, in some series comprising up to a third of patients. Several sections are listy and could be converted to prose. > could be replaced with greater than. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate some help in putting through relatively simple fixes (wording, stylistic, links). I could prosaify lists only if the items were conceptually related. At the moment the lists are not in the majority and I feel no changes should be made. I have revised the constipation sentence because I was unable to source it. JFW | T@lk 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done Most recommendations adopted. I wish to defend the use of "miscelaneous"; the article states quite clearly that these symptoms have an unclear causative relationship with villous atrophy. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- One more comment I've had another read, and the article has improved quite a bit—I especially like the complete absence of {{fact}} tags :). I would have no problem supporting it, if it weren't for the "Genetics" section, which is still cumbersome and makes for very dry, "clinical" (obviously, no pun intended) reading. I realize there's probably not much that can be done about this, but I'd like to see someone have a go at it. Fvasconcellos 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Will have a stab at this later on today. I'd really like this to go to FA. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great, I'll have another look later. Fvasconcellos 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Will have a stab at this later on today. I'd really like this to go to FA. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, looking better. There is still room for improvement in the "Genetics" section in my humble opinion, but the prose is cleaner, and the section is (to me at least) entirely comprehensible, although I don't know how it would read to someone with no biomedical "background" whatsoever. "Tissue transglutaminase" could also use some more wikification. I like the recent fleshing out of "History", by the way, and am leaning ever closer to a Support :) Fvasconcellos 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I think it looks good, except for the extra "o" you put in "celiac"... MastCell Talk 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WS 11:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It looks good for me too. Nice job JFW! NCurse work 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
[edit] Durian
Self-nomination. The article was prematurely nominated in July 2006 by another editor and failed. Since then I have been working to fix the problems and it appears to be completed now. Any objection will be responded promptly. --BorgQueen 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment for now WP:UNITS needs to be applied to this article. Gnangarra 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment...just reading about it makes me queasy. I gagged, couldn't hack the smell which was to me like armpit mixed with asparagus (yechhh!). But seriously, I think it fulfils all criteria but I am concerned about the flow of language in the lead, especially the first para - the sentences seem clunky. I feel teh label 'King of Fruit' should be in the first 1-2 sentences as it highlights the reverence this fruit is held in in SE Asia - something really highlighting how you either love it or hate it. I am happy to have a tinker but won't unless given permission and you want to try it first. I was also wondering whether teh lead should be a tiny bit longer given the length of the article but was unsure what else should go in it. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)- Sure, you are welcome to lend a helping hand and edit the lead yourself (if that is what you meant). Although I am a bit nervous that you spell the as teh. :-D But I wouldn't mind if you are willing to fix the lead yourself. --BorgQueen 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- hahaha - ok, there. I know I mention smell and taste twice but I was trying to encapsulate what the key points are in the first sentence or two. With this plant i feel no text can overemphasise the issue on smell/taste....(feel free to tweak more) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, it looks quite good now, and the lead has three paragraphs, which is the standard for a FA (as far as I know). Thanks for your help. Done --BorgQueen 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, it looks quite good now, and the lead has three paragraphs, which is the standard for a FA (as far as I know). Thanks for your help.
- I like a bit of botany (which is why I added the sentence in the lead to show what economically important plants it is related to), actually the article is a little light on the botanical side of things but not enough to oppose. Sorry as I write this I am musing on the lead still to see if it is nice and tight yet. I might have to ruminate a bit..but it's improving. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support oh sod it - I keep playing around with it in my head and I can't see a better way of reworking the lead. I am happy now. Congrats (well, hopefully) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak supportSupport. Got to taste it once, very strange.
-
- Some apparent OR on unreferenced paragraphs, including in the "Durian customs" section and third paragraph of the lead.
- Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...and even cappuccino - POV.
- Done Removed "even". BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some durians really do have almost no spines - Reword to Some durians have shortened spines.
- Done The sentence, uncited, has been replaced with a cited one. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alphabetize interwiki links.
They are already alphabetized, beginning with bg:Дуриан, da:Durian, de:Durian, eo:Durio,... and ending with zh:榴槤. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Ok, I got what you meant. I organized the links according to the order posted here. Please let me know if I missed anything. Done --BorgQueen 02:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...creamy, slightly alcoholic - "alcoholic" improperly linked.
- Done The internal link has been removed. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reference USDA Nutrient database in the nutritional value chart using a regular reference rather than an external link.
- Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...some distance before excreting it, the seed being dispersed as the result - Change second part to ...with the seed being. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a little confused. Does this article about the fruit durian also represent the genus durio? --Idda 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, just like the article about the black pepper also represent the species Piper nigrum. --BorgQueen 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right. P. nigrum as a species is synonymous with black pepper. If I understand correctly, durian fruit is not a characterizing feature of the genus durio, albeit that is what its most known for. My point is the plant itself should the subject. Not that the fruit shouldn't comprise most of the article but I think as it stands the tree (genus) is given short shrift in the lead. --Idda 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - See WP:NC (flora) for guidelines on articles that deal with botanical products. This article is excellent for its subject matter, but I'd remove the taxobox and create Durio to cover some of the material presented in the "Species" and "Cultivars" sections, then rewrite those in summary style (though they're pretty close as it is). The taxobox is a bit misleading, I think, since the article is about the fruit product and not about the genus. Of course, creation of the article Durio is not a requirement for my support of this article for FA status, but I think it would help make the focus of the article a bit more clear with two separate articles and use of summary style in Durian for genus-related topics in the article. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I tend to agree that a separate article on Durio as a genus in its strictly botanical sense would be helpful for the reader; above all, we have a huge load of material available on its cultivars (actually I had created a big table for the cultivars in 2006 but removed it because it was a bit overwhelming) and the current cultivar section is a summary, which means there is nothing much to be taken out of the current article even when the article about the genus is created, except the plant infobox. --BorgQueen 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - See WP:NC (flora) for guidelines on articles that deal with botanical products. This article is excellent for its subject matter, but I'd remove the taxobox and create Durio to cover some of the material presented in the "Species" and "Cultivars" sections, then rewrite those in summary style (though they're pretty close as it is). The taxobox is a bit misleading, I think, since the article is about the fruit product and not about the genus. Of course, creation of the article Durio is not a requirement for my support of this article for FA status, but I think it would help make the focus of the article a bit more clear with two separate articles and use of summary style in Durian for genus-related topics in the article. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right. P. nigrum as a species is synonymous with black pepper. If I understand correctly, durian fruit is not a characterizing feature of the genus durio, albeit that is what its most known for. My point is the plant itself should the subject. Not that the fruit shouldn't comprise most of the article but I think as it stands the tree (genus) is given short shrift in the lead. --Idda 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support now this is fixed.
Weak Oppose, solely on part of the 'Medicinal Uses' section. "It is recommended as a good source of raw fats by several raw food advocates,[30][31] while others classify it as a high-glycemic fruit and recommend to minimise its consumption.[32] David Klein, a certified health consultant, instructs those with colitis or Crohn's disease to temporarily discontinue eating durian in his "vegan healing diet guidelines", classifying the fruit as one of fatty, high-protein foods". I'm not sure the sources for this section are medical or nutritional authorities. Do differing points of view amongst different sorts of vegans (quacks or not) really warrant inclusion here? If so, they probably shouldn't be in a 'medicinal' section.Otherwise, very good article, I will eat dozens of them on public transport next time I am in Singapore. The Land 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)- I've renamed the section to "Nutritional and medicinal". Will this do? And why do you have to torture those poor Singaporeans that way? :-D --BorgQueen 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, I edited out the David Klein part and reworded the sentence. Please check if it is better now, in your view. --BorgQueen 12:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've renamed the section to "Nutritional and medicinal". Will this do? And why do you have to torture those poor Singaporeans that way? :-D --BorgQueen 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
[edit] Simeon I of Bulgaria
I've devoted quite a lot of time to the article, bringing it from this to its current state. It is extensively referenced using authoritative sources, thorough and, I believe, exhaustive, well-illustrated with media such as own-made SVG maps, miniatures, quotes and a family tree, accurate, neutral and stable.
Very importantly, the article is up-to-date with the modern historiographic treatment of the more obscure moments of Simeon's life (such as the 912 coronation and the proclamation of the patriarchate), for which I consulted Ian Mladjov, an instructor at the University of Michigan, via e-mail. As I'm not a native speaker, I requested a copyedit, which was carried out by Bcasterline, in order to meet the "well-written" requirement.
I chose to have footnotes in the lead section because I generally like to have even the general observations and summaries referenced. The article has had a peer review (though, unfortunately, by only a single person). Todor→Bozhinov 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support - well-written, extensively referenced, has the requisite nice pictures. Also informative, as it's on a topic the general reader may not be familiar with. Biruitorul 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. One comment after reading this interesting article: instead of writing "(In German)" or "(In Bulgarian)" in your references section, I believe it is standard practice to use the language icons like this: {{bg_icon}} for (Bulgarian) and {{de_icon}} for (German). JHMM13 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hm...perhaps not. It appears to be a problem with the citation template. Oh well...nevermind what I said then. :-D JHMM13 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support - Wow! I've never seen an article with that many references before! Puts my Archaeopteryx above to shame! And considering it was in that state not long ago - this is a wonderful article. 10/10 for me - This deserves to be a FA. Well done. Perfect in almost everyway I can see. Regards, Spawn Man 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support -this is really splendid article : ) It has good range of maps and contemporary images which perfectly illustrate the well-written and informative text. --Gligan 09:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - very well put-together and thoroughly polished. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support per above. A benchmark. Manderiko 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Against --Poemsnewly 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)removed as sock by Bonaparte. /FunkyFly.talk_ 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. /FunkyFly.talk_ 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Domitius 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- An opponent of the Byzantine empire?!! Agrrrr!!!! Well, you know ... I'll support, because it is a great, great, great (I want to make that clear!) article. Just a suggestion: Todor, it is not nice to have 3 or 4 citations in a row as you do in two occasions. You could combine these citations in one in various ways: just check what Sandy did in Tourette syndrome, me in El Greco, and Cla68 in Battle of Edson's Ridge. Just a suggestion you could think about.--Yannismarou 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! I really like your suggestion and tomorrow I'll revise the citations so as to leave only one footnote at each place and no rows of two or more. The bullet way to do that (as in your impressive El Greco article) seems most appropriate and neat, particularly where I have three or four citations and simply listing them separated by commas might be somewhat confusing. Todor→Bozhinov 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done, though I decided to only merge clusters of more than two citations (per your suggestion), because if I'd merged those of two only, that would have required too large a reorganization of <ref name> tags and at the same time wouldn't have been of too much help. Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! I really like your suggestion and tomorrow I'll revise the citations so as to leave only one footnote at each place and no rows of two or more. The bullet way to do that (as in your impressive El Greco article) seems most appropriate and neat, particularly where I have three or four citations and simply listing them separated by commas might be somewhat confusing. Todor→Bozhinov 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely amazing. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Few nitpicks: 1) "Boris, who had retreated to a monastery" - do we know which monastery? 2) "punish Vladimir" - how? 3) possible article to be stubbed (I notice the article has no red links - this is not good, as it discourages creation of new articles): assembly in Preslav, Gavril, Nikephoros Phokas, Byzantine navy, Leo Magister, Constantine Doukas, Leo Phokas, Mihailo Višević, Theodore Sigritsa, Marmais, Pavle Branović, Zaharije Pribisavljević, George Sursuvul 4) "Simeon's two encounters with the enemy in Northern Dobruja were unsuccessful" - was he defeated? Sounds 'weaselish' 5) "which was largely what Simeon had planned to do" - how? 6) some language is a little unencyclopedic: lots of 'annihilations', 'desperate pleas' amd such. I'd say that the article is very pro-Simeon, but as I have little knowledge of that period and place I will not object based on my fillings - but are all sources presenting him as such a great and wise rulers? Is there no criticism? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, I don't think we know the name of the monastery.
- According to some sources, by blinding him, but I don't think this is relevant in the context of the article. We have Vladimir of Bulgaria, after all :)
- In the past I've been criticized for leaving any red links, and some of the figures you've listed, while notable, are very scarcely attested, so I don't think we could have anything more than stubs on most of them.
- Well, I am criticizing you for not enough red links :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, he was defeated, but I thought my wording makes it clear... it seems like I'll have to reword. Done
- This is mentioned several times. E.g., by betrothing his daughter to the infant Constantine VII, by forcefully conquering Constantinople...
- Romanos' pleas really were desperate. Would you like some? :) He says he "wouldn't fall silent, would clatter, would constantly remind [of the peace] and reprimand, until Simeon's heart opens for sympathy" and he "wouldn't spare neither gold nor silver nor precious garments nor any other necessary thing", as long as Simeon agrees to peace. As for the annihilations, that's what the sources say, and I'm inclined to think they really were such. The Byzantines themselves say they were "infamously slain" at Anchialos, for example.
- Yes, there was criticism, mainly related to the "Byzantineness" of Golden-Age Bulgarian culture and its supposed shortage of originality, as well as to the endless campaigns towards the end of his reign, which according to some exhausted the Bulgarian state. But notice I haven't said he was wise and great anywhere :)
- And... thanks for the support! Todor→Bozhinov 10:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support — a very impressive article (note: I formatted the References section). Happy editing, S.D. 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please eliminate the jump to an external website in Legacy and popular culture; it can be added to external links or cited as a reference, but external jumps shouldn't be in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.
[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans
Many of the objections to this article have been rendered moot, and I'd like some fresh opinions, so I'm resetting this nomination. (old nom) Raul654 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Mostly sSupport, just two issues left about which I’m not quite happy: the Phases and Today sections are too short (merge under a common heading?) and the sentence ‘Most of the images on this page are from that phase.’ should be removed outright. —xyzzyn 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The following section, from the lead
The combination of the semi-mechanized process, the non-painterly style, and the commercial subject initially caused offense, as the work's blatantly mundane commercialism represented a direct affront to the technique and philosophy of Abstract expressionism. The Abstract expressionism art movement was dominant during the post-war period, and it held not only to "fine art" values and aesthetics but also to a mystical inclination. This controversy led to a great deal of debate about the merits and ethics of such work. Warhol's motives as an artist were questioned, and they continue to be topical to this day. The public commotion helped transition Warhol from being an accomplished 1950s commercial illustrator to a notable fine artist, and it helped distinguish him from other rising pop artists. Although commercial demand for his paintings was not immediate, Warhol's association with the subject lead to his name becoming synonymous with the Campbell's Soup can paintings.
- needs citations. —Dark•Shikari[T] 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- These sentences are summaries of the article that follows (because the lead is basically suppose to summarize the rest of the article). The first sentence is a sentence from my brain. The second is some help from Tyrenius. I don't know who contributed the others, but suspect that some of the help came from solid copyeditors TheQuandry and Ceoil.
- At one point I was told either to include one citation in each para of intro or none in any. Full inline citation of summary items from an indepth article are possibly a bit much to ask because even some sentences are combining thougthts of many cited statements below. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sentences in the lead do not require inline citations, a lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It is assumed that the statements are sourced elsewhere. If they're not, then that's a problem but unsourced statements in the lead are fine. Quadzilla99 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support (previous objections have been addressed) ShadowHalo 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support (previous objections have been addressed) Johnbod 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not clear as to the relations of the first 2 section headers with the topic (especially seeing the length of "New York art scene"). Also, it sounds like they should be merged into a single "Background" or "prior career" section. Circeus 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merged Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merged
- Support as fair use issues have been addressed.Balloonman 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly Support as that seems to have worked well above. :-)
- devolped?
- Why is the juice box under Motivation, when it's not referred to there (it's apparently first referred to under Pop art)?
- moved Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- moved
- premier -> premiere, several places
- minor variation in the lettering of the variety names - too much space is spent on describing trivial distinctions. Condense to a few sentences and examples, please.
- A matter of taste. Another editor may choose to reedit. I will stand pat on this. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pop art section seems overcited. Are these facts so controversial and likely to be disputed that every sentence needs one or two refs?
- Most of the citations are navigational and directional in the sense that they either send people to internet or text resources for further details on the specific fact. It is really little harm to have a few superscript numbers sprinkled in to give direction on further details. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- responsorial? It's a word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means ...[17]
- West Coast debut of Pop art; Warhol continued painting other pop art; ... - pick either upper or lower case Pop, and use it throughout the article
- Pop -> pop Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pop -> pop
- (according to Marcel Duchamp)[48] - end of a sentence needs a period somewhere
- Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Abstract expressionism art movement - don't capitalize the A, see that article
- Abstract -> abstract Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Abstract -> abstract
- (his career went through three distinct phases in which he expended a great deal of effort in this area) - vague and wordy. Rewrite, or just strike; it's explained in more detail in the article body.
- reworded Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- reworded
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. (Have copy edited the article). Per reasons give in my support of the previous nomination. Ceoil 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support excellent stuff. Manderiko 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
[edit] Michael Jordan
The old nom had lots of problems, so I'm restarting it clean. Raul654 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I notified everyone who voted on the previous FAC. Quadzilla99 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment For the sake of accuracy, it should be clarified in the "Legacy" section that the ESPN poll (and probably the AP one too - the source isn't clear) was limited to North Americans. I wondered why I'd only heard of 6 of the top 10 athletes of the 20th century; now it makes sense. I think it's probably OK to leave it alone in the Lead, as it's a detail (though an important one). --Dweller 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I changed it in both the lead and Legacy section just to be perfectly clear, although they are both marketed as "athlete of the century" lists no non-North Americans appears on either of them so it's misleading to leave that out. Quadzilla99 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the AP list technically includes non-North Americans so I changed the wording back to athletes in that one, I provided links to both complete lists in the article now though. I could include a non American poll but I can't find one that's notable enough. I was hoping the BBC had one but they don't appear to. Quadzilla99 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In the lead, the text reads "he became the most effectively marketed athlete of his generation". This is a bold assertion, not properly supported in the text and certainly not referenced. --Dweller 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done I found a couple of sources which seem to say that. Such as when he became the highest paid athlete in the world in 1992 almost 90% of his income was from endorsements,[20] and that he had a $10 billion dollar impact on the US economy.[21] But since this is likely to cause dispute (like the greatest of all time thing) I just changed it to "one of". Quadzilla99 13:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I've done a lot of work on this article and nominated it last time. All of the specific concerns of the previous nom have been addressed. Quadzilla99 12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Chensiyuan 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support All the previous concerns from the FAC have been addressed. The descriptive terms used in regards to him have now been made particularly generic, even though most people actually thought they were fine to begin with. Aaron Bowen 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Significant issues in old nom resolved to my satisfaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Manderiko 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Warhol13 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Zodiiak 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support for the reasons stated before. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I really hate to say this, but some of this article's text seems to copy and pasted directly from an official, copyrighted biography [22], e.g. the sentence "In the 1990-91 season, Michael Jordan, motivated by the team's narrow defeat against the Pistons a year earlier, finally bought into Jackson and assistant coach Tex Winter's triangle offense after years of resistance." which appears verbatim in both. The next sentence is only marginally different in the Wikipedia article, with some statistics abbreviated. If nothing else this paragraph needs to be rewritten most likely. It would be helpful if we could identify who added this text, to help find out if there are more incidents remaining in the article... I will look into it later. --W.marsh 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is a serious issue. I'll try to trace it back right now. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think they took it from Wikipedia, this photo is identical to one we previously had here on Wikipedia:[23] Which is from a flickr user which has since been deleted. A lot of this was here before I started working on the article so I can't be certain. I think this guy lifted it from the article in mid 2006. Quadzilla99 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually after looking at the site closer, I think you may be right... now that I think about it, I recall seeing a site exactly like this for Peyton Manning some time ago. At any rate this is not an official site as I said above, my bad. For now am I going to say this site probably is plagiarizing Wikipedia. --W.marsh 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The addition was made by an anon on December 22, 2005. [24]. This version lacked the lead phrase of "In the 1990-1991 season", so if it was copied to WP, it should have that phrase. That part was only added later on. It is very possible that they jacked it from WP. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The website is copyright 2006, does that mean the website started up in 2006? Quadzilla99 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) I also think they took portions of the lead. This sounds like an older version of the article. I am not too surprised, many sites take content from WP without citing it and violate GFDL. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah the website also contains sentences which are verbatim or similar to a 2004 version of our article:[25][26][27] (See the lead and the first couple of sentences in early life) Quadzilla99 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) I also think they took portions of the lead. This sounds like an older version of the article. I am not too surprised, many sites take content from WP without citing it and violate GFDL. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The website is copyright 2006, does that mean the website started up in 2006? Quadzilla99 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- A problem remains though, in that this probably plagiarized site is cited as the source for the sentence in question, so basically the Wikipedia article is citing itself as a source. I would suggest removing the citation or finding something acceptable. --W.marsh 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh no problem, my god you nearly gave me a heart attack. It's probably used as a source as someone looked for a source for that statement and found that site. I'll find a source. Quadzilla99 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Here's where you deal with GFDL stuff: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- (PS, I hope everyone understands now why I try to check every source, and why it bugs me when references aren't fully formatted so that we can easily check sources, and when reliable sources aren't used; looks like I missed one here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think that was added recently, it's pretty embarassing, I'll go back and check them all again. I removed the sentence until we can find a source for it. I'm pretty sure I remember him saying it on one of his videos. But I can't be sure either the "Air up there" or "Air Time", of course I threw those VHS's out when I went to DVD so it goes for now. Quadzilla99 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- (PS, I hope everyone understands now why I try to check every source, and why it bugs me when references aren't fully formatted so that we can easily check sources, and when reliable sources aren't used; looks like I missed one here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's where you deal with GFDL stuff: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh no problem, my god you nearly gave me a heart attack. It's probably used as a source as someone looked for a source for that statement and found that site. I'll find a source. Quadzilla99 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The addition was made by an anon on December 22, 2005. [24]. This version lacked the lead phrase of "In the 1990-1991 season", so if it was copied to WP, it should have that phrase. That part was only added later on. It is very possible that they jacked it from WP. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually after looking at the site closer, I think you may be right... now that I think about it, I recall seeing a site exactly like this for Peyton Manning some time ago. At any rate this is not an official site as I said above, my bad. For now am I going to say this site probably is plagiarizing Wikipedia. --W.marsh 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I listed some of the more questionable sources on the article's talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done All checked and addressed, I believe.
That is if we agree it's okay to use Britannica and Encarta.I went through the article and checked each individual source against what it was supporting, there was one minor error (Jordan created the Boys and Girls Club dedicated to his father in 1996 not 1998 it was wrong in the text, 1998 was the date of the article not the event). I'll double check again just to be sure Quadzilla99 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)- Encyclopedia refs removed. Quadzilla99 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support I think the article is pretty solid. I'm giving it a weak support because the prose still doesn't WOW me, although I guess it's good enough. Zagalejo 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support One of the greats and the article deserves FA too.--Thugchildz 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per above, great job. Gran2 12:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support now, but I'd like to see some reference to buying into the triangle offense be put back in... although maybe that's more important with respect to Phil Jackson's coaching success. At any rate, it's a minor thing... the article is really great for a sports biography. --W.marsh 13:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Seems alright. If there anything minor that needs fixing, I'd do myself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. another great basketball bio, yay. Plus heavily referenced, which is always good.--Wizardman 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. The prose could still be polished, but all in all, a FA. Onomatopoeia 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This article has greatly improved since its original candidature, and now I think it easily satisfies all the FA requirements. Abecedare 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: In "First retirement", the following sentence doesn't make sense: "Jordan was close to his father; he had observed his father's proclivity to stick out his tongue while absorbed in work, and adopted it as his own signature, which was on display each time he drove to the basket." I don't see how the two ideas connect. I've made a few other fixes as well; this looks pretty good. --Spangineerws (háblame) 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Response When Jordan's father worked on mechanical devices he stuck his tongue out. Jordan also developed this unique practice and got it from watching and imitating his father. When he drove to the basket he often stuck his own tongue out. It became a well known habit of his. There's a pic in there of him doing it. Quadzilla99 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Basically it's like the old saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Quadzilla99 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
[edit] A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
Self-nomination I have worked quite a bit on expanding this page on an important feminist text from a mere list of quotations and chapter headings to its GA current form. I believe that it is well-written, comprehensive and well-sourced. It has recently been through a thorough peer-review as well as a review from another wikipedia editor. See Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2007. I may have given extensive answers to questions you have at those locations. Thanks. Awadewit 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments The lead is pretty good except the first sentence gets me. You write, "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) is one of the earliest works of feminist literature or philosophy." Which is it? Is it both literature and philosophy? Is there a debate about it? Otherwise the lead is fine and a good summary of the text.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I meant it is one of the earliest feminist books of any kind, in either literature or philosophy. And, yes, I would assume that philosophers would say this is not philosophy while literary critics and feminist scholars like to claim that it is. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- You write, "In a lively and sometimes vicious pamphlet war, now referred to as the "Revolution Controversy". Should Revolution Controversy be wikilinked? It sounds like something interesting and worth an article.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no page on the "Revolution Controversy." Perhaps I will write one someday.
- You write, "That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman, and the question of women's rights became a live one in both France and Britain." I think "became a lively one" is what you meant here. It reads a bit funny overall. Did the question of women's rights become a lively one because of de Gouge's publication, or was it an overall mood that begun due to various factors.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- DoneI meant "live" as in a "living" question, a question that was up for debate. Literary critics use that diction a lot. I will change it as it is not familiar to the general reader. de Gouge's publication had a lot to do with it becoming a more important issue at the time. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- You write now, "That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman, and the question of women's rights became central to political debates in both France and Britain." It's a little ambiguous about something that might be complex. Was de Gouge's publication responsible for the political debates in Britain as well? The way it's phrased I can't tell what led up to the political debate on women's rights. If it was maybe 12 publications and 6 movements, or simply de Gouge and Wollstonecraft's publications.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it is a complex event, and, yes, de Gouge's pamphlet was responsible for prompting increased debates in both countries. I can't go into the whole history of women's rights in the eighteenth century here. That is why I provide a link to the "history of feminism" page later. Awadewit 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- You write now, "That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman, and the question of women's rights became central to political debates in both France and Britain." It's a little ambiguous about something that might be complex. Was de Gouge's publication responsible for the political debates in Britain as well? The way it's phrased I can't tell what led up to the political debate on women's rights. If it was maybe 12 publications and 6 movements, or simply de Gouge and Wollstonecraft's publications.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- You write, "she is concerned with the rights afforded to "woman," an abstract category." This could do with a bit more explanation. What is an abstract category, and specifically why have women been placed in it?-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was clear that "woman" is abstract while "men" is specific - is it not? Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- How abstract was the category of "woman"? For men it's specific to country and time period, and for woman it was universal and timeless? Could you characterize how abstract the category of woman was in a more explanatory way? It's an important comparison to make, but the phrase sounds like women are an abstract category when what you mean to say is that "she is concerned with the rights afforded to an abstract depiction of "woman,"..." I think.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- In this context, it is grammar that reveals all. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is discussing the abstract category of "woman" because it is using the singular. A Vindication of the Rights of Men is discussing particular men because it is using the plural. I don't think that it is necessary to explain this. I do not mean to say she is concerned with "rights afforded to an abstract depiction of woman." "Depiction" suggests that the category is a mere representation and not part of reality.
- How abstract was the category of "woman"? For men it's specific to country and time period, and for woman it was universal and timeless? Could you characterize how abstract the category of woman was in a more explanatory way? It's an important comparison to make, but the phrase sounds like women are an abstract category when what you mean to say is that "she is concerned with the rights afforded to an abstract depiction of "woman,"..." I think.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did a minor copyedit of the Themes section, "sensibility" was a physical phenonemon" (misspelled phenomenon?) the sentence on what the discourse on sensibility did for humanity, ...
- Further down in the same section, you write "For example, Wollstonecraft advises her readers to "calmly let passion subside into friendship" in the ideal companionate marriage". What is a companionate marriage? It comes up again in the Reception section
- DoneMarriages based on love rather than those based on money. I will add an explanatory phrase. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- "In many ways the Vindication of the Rights of Woman is inflected by a bourgeois view of the world"... very nice! an example of brilliant prose.
- In the Revision section you write, "I intend to finish the next volume before I begin to print, for it is not pleasant to have the Devil coming for the conclusion of a sheet fore it is written." She knew she was dying? Was she ill? Did she know things were going bad for her, health-wise? How did she die? From the article on Wollstonecraft's life I see it was due to an infection after giving birth. Maybe a note on this would clarify things.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- DoneNo, she did not know she was dying. She was being hounded by her publisher to finish the book quickly. I will add a phrase. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- You write, "the Devil [a reference to her publisher, Joseph Johnson]". That seems a little bit harsh. Are you sure that's correct? Are you sure she wasn't just speaking metaphorically about deadlines?-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Overall, very neutral, and it really gives you a good idea of what this work is all about. If I were to read it I would immediately know the context within which it took place.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I happen to have read this work, and this article covers all the topics within. Moreover, it does so in a neutral and complete manner, using a brilliant prose at times. I believe it meets all FA requirements, although I am aware some editors prefer a referenced lead. Just two nitpicks: maybe at the end of the article you could add a line or two about the author's lifestyle, so the reader has a more accurate idea about why the Memoirs would cause such a stir so as to make people want to distance themselves from Wollstonecraft and the VRW? And perhaps the image of Wollstonecraft could appear before in the article, as opposed to nearly at the end of it? Aside from these minor points, superb work! :-) Raystorm 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have changed the placement of the images. Let me know if you think it is better.
- I have added sentences explaining Wollstonecraft's "unorthdox" lifestyle.
- All of the statements in the lead are referenced elsewhere. There seems to be no agreement on this issue. I think the lead looks more elegant without all of the notes and since it is a summary, all of the information reappears in one form or another in the article itself. Awadewit 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, looks great. :-) And I agree, leads without refs look better, but as there's no consensus on the matter you might get an editor yet that will want you to ref it up. ;-) Cheers Raystorm 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support this article was very good when it came to peer review and it's only gotten better since. The writing in particular is outstanding (though I'd still replace 'hostilely' with 'with hostility' in the sentence about its reception). Opabinia regalis 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the sentence in the "Reception" section but then added a new sentence to the lead, forgetting about your objection to that phrase. I have now changed the sentence in the lead to "unfavorably received." Awadewit 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.
[edit] Flag of Portugal
Self-nomination. Less than a month ago, I did a major expansion and restructuring to this article where a few newly-created images (my authorship) were also added. It is an A-Class article according to WikiProject Portugal and is expecting a class reassessment from the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject. I believe it follows all FA criteria, but the final decision is yours. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe I'm just being fussy with my spelling, but shouldn't the "color" section be spelt "colour"? As, to my knowledge anyway, the international convention for this word's spelling, apart from North America, is spelt with a "u"?--Phill talk Edits 17:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The wiki article spells "Color" and you find more Google results for "color" than for "colour"; nonetheless, "colour" does seem to be more universal according to the Commonwealth usage. The spelling MOS does give preference to the "our" variant over the "or" one, but if one variant is kept throughout the whole article, there is no problem. I'm OK if a change to "our" is preferred. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I believe the consensus on NA v. Commonwealth english is that it doesn't matter which is used, as long as it is consistent in the article. IE, it's ok if the whole article is written in NA English, or in Commonwealth English, but should not be mixed.
Canæn 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the consensus on NA v. Commonwealth english is that it doesn't matter which is used, as long as it is consistent in the article. IE, it's ok if the whole article is written in NA English, or in Commonwealth English, but should not be mixed.
-
-
-
-
-
- American English seems to be predominant in this article, so it should be kept all in AE. There are still a few cases of BE that need to be removed: "honourable" in the "Colors" section, "favour" in the "1830 – 1910" section, and "honourable" in the "Flag protocol" section (twice).-- Carabinieri 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Done. Thanks for finding those. Sometimes it might happen that variants get mixed, especially when the editor isn't a native-speaker of any of the variants. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment -- Almost there. 1. The third level headings cause a lopsided ToC, suggest that ==Symbolism= be promoted. 2. Dashes needed in the section header for the years (and also between years) 3. Imperial equivalents would help make it accessible to a wider audience. 4. Curiously, seven castles -- what is so curious? PS I love the SVG flags. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak opposeSupport. Minor issues mostly. 1) Dates appear inconsistently. Would you like the article to be written in British English or American English? 2) Use of italics in quotes should generally be avoided per WP:ITALICS. 3) ...sometimes dating back to the begining of the 20th century. 4) The Wikimedia Commons link should appear as "Flags of Portugal"; this can be achieved using an external parameter. 5) "It was also used on the flag from 1640–1707 and 1816–1830." - Factual inaccuracy? It clearly seem the 1707 design uses a different structure, and the 1816 design follows it so there isn't a need to separate the periods. 6) ...this flag is almost similar to the current one - Given the previous statement, the flag is similar to the current one. 7) Sole years should not be linked per WP:DATE. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I believe I fixed all of the listed issues and, though I didn't quite understand what you meant with 1), I reviewed all the linked dates and wrote them in the same style. As for either AE or BE, I don't have any preference, but since I wrote the article using the American variant, it's better to keep it this way (you found any other words non-accordingly?). About the shield image caption, I wanted to stress that that specific format was used during those periods, while from 1707 to 1816 and from 1830 to 1910, another shield shape (different from the current) was used. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- 1) There were some switches to American English in the article recently, and the dates are inconsistent with that. 5) I understand that, but it might be confusing for the readers. It appears to be written differently now. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- weak support a good article, although referencing in the introduction is poor Ahadland 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've noticed that the requirement (or not) of references on the lead section has been discussed somewhere, but I don't know if a consensus was reached on any of the views. The lead is defined as a summary of "the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Where the article explains these important points in a longer, deeper and more detailed fashion, all the necessary references are present, so is it really necessary to do it on the lead, if there aren't any dubious, questionable sentences? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's clear , comprehensive and well structured. I particularly like the Evolution section. Galf 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good article. I love the flags. Joaopais 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Galf; I like the Evolution section, too. --Crzycheetah 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great article. The WikiProject Portugal rating has changed to GA. Personally, I'm inclined to FA.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support but I've just reverted the GA rating, because only through GA candidacy can an article achieve that rating. In fact, replacing an A-Class rate for GA-Class is downgrading it. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
[edit] Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War
I've tried to model this article after Clyde Miller and Deckiller's Empires: Dawn of the Modern World; they helped me on this one too. The article has improved from Start to A-Class, and I thought it might be ready for FA. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks! · AO Talk 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support — it's looking very good; it might need a final comb by 2-3 copy-editors to ensure the prose is optimum. — Deckiller 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support As AndonicO said, I did do some editing and collaborating with this. However, I just took one last read, and if there's something in need still, I can't find it.--Clyde (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support — looks pretty good. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support besides the fact that isn't as illustrated as other VG FA's, it's alright. igordebraga ≠ 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak opposeright now. The Campaigns section is quite awkward — "Also in the game are two campaigns". The Reception section uses a lot of direct quotes — it would be better to write some of this in your own words, if possible. It's very difficult to make the prose flow well when linking together quotes like that. Someone's taken a stab at it, but it still feels awkward. --- RockMFR 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also, is there a reference for "achieved high sales in the United Kingdom"? I'm just skimming, so I might have missed it. --- RockMFR 06:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The link for the high rankings is to Heaven games, since ELSPA has been updated already. It's this one. Is the campaign section better? I'm not sure if you meant the whole thing, or just the introduction. I'll try to improve the reviews section tommorow. · AO Talk 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Looks generally good, a few thoughts:
-
- third person shooter - should there be a hyphen between "third" and person"? Done
- Lead could probably be condensed to two paragraphs, as it's a fairly short article. Done
- Reviews of the game were mixed; however, it won two awards, and was commercially successful in the United Kingdom - "however" isn't really contradicting anything, so I find it slightly jarring. The reviews being "mixed" implies it will have been received partially positively. Done
- Critics have rated Rise and Fall many times, giving it both positive and negative scores - um, what? Try rewording. Done
- The graphics were examined as well; they were well liked with high graphics settings, though criticised when they were low. - the whole sentence seems rather odd to me. Also, there may be hyphens needed between "well" and "liked", and "high" and "graphics". Done
- third person shooter - should there be a hyphen between "third" and person"?
This could probably do with a copyedit to weed out clumsy phrases. Trebor 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is it better now? · AO Talk 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
[edit] Technopark, Kerala
- Nomination and Strong Support This article, IMHO, looks well written and comprehensive, and is a useful source of information of most types of readers. It has recently been rated as a Selected Article. I have contributed to this article and feel that the article can be looked at for being rated a Featured Article. The discussion during the nomination as a Selected Article can be reviewed [here]. Ajaypp (I am here..) 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral for nowIt does need to have a section on its history and beginings.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A section on the History and Mission of Technopark has been added. Ajaypp (I am here..) 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The fair use rationale has been updated in the Image's summary section. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide Imperial units in bracket for Metric system units. Please provide USD equivalents wherever Indian rupee or Indian units (crore) have been used. Also, citation superscripts has to immediately follow punctuation marks. I noticed two instances where citation superscripts were placed before comma. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The instances of citations preceding punctuation marks have been edited. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Metric System and USD equivalents have been inserted wherever required.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support well written article and useful for people interested in India's largest and also one of the fastest growing hi-tech areas --Harig 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose
- Too list-happy (2 sections entirely made of list, one of which of truly dubious necessity)
- I think it's reasonable to expect some text between the "Infrastructure" and "Buildings" headers.
- Actually, it probably is too subdivided. "cultures" and "infrastructure" can probably be done without headers at all.
- Also, there are two "Buildings" headers...
- The "Buildings" table may be pretty, but it's ridiculously overcomplicated for what it has to do.
- Image:Thejaswini.jpg is unnecessary fair use per our WP:FUC policy. It should not only be removed, but nominated for deletion.
- Why is it called a "campus"? It's consistently described as an industrial park, not an institution of higher learning.
- Circeus 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Response
- Lead-in text has been added in the Infrastructure section, as suggested.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Culture section was suggested as an addition during the article's previous review. IMHO, it is a worthwhile addition as the cultural activities in Technopark are a significant part of the employees' life there and are also well known, in their own right.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing the section itself.I just think it has too many sub-sections under it. One-paragraph sections are generally considered bad (cf. Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs).Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree there was some duplication in the "Infrastructure" and "Buildings" sections. the two have now been merged to create a more concise flow of content.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The content of the table in the Buildings section was earlier in prose and had been migrated to a table after discussion during the article's previous' review for Selected Article status. The parameters used in the table are considered relevant for buildings providing IT/ITES office space and would be useful for serious readers and those conducting high-level research. I hope you will agree to this fact.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I reformatted it myself. Maybe it'll be more obvious what I meant.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Understood, your format seems simpler and more suited to the tone of the article. Thanks for the change. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I reformatted it myself. Maybe it'll be more obvious what I meant.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The word Campus can also be used for land in which office buildings are resident, as can be seen in the Wikipedia article on Campus. A notable example is the Microsoft Campus in Redmond, Washington. The term is commonly used in literature pertaining to Technopark, as you can see from some of the cited references.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay.I still find it rather confusing, though.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- A new Thejaswini image, with proper fair use conditions, has been used instead of the previous one.Thank you for pointing it out.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nice.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- A few more comments:
- Unless they are about things that are capitalized, headers should be in sentence case, not title case.
- Why "Technopark Club", but "Technopark adventure club"? Do they or do they not capitals? As a formal organization, the adv. club probably shoud be capitalized. It isso on thepage used as a source, anyway. Capitalization in several other places is inconsistent (e.g. "Tech-a-break")
- Point taken. I have made the capitalizations as suggested. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could images have captions that are better? "Bhavani building" etc. would already be an improvement, as would identifying the building whose interior is shown. The "carnival" caption is misleading: it's not an actual carnival.
- Image captions have been modified, as suggested. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article is probably not long enough to warrant inside internal links.
-
- Not been able to spot Internal Links. Will remove if there are any. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- em dashes have been inserted where required. Thanks to Harryboyles for an AWB edit on the same. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 10:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There are way toomany little details that need to be looked at before this can reasonably be called "Wikipedia's best work":
- Inappropriate dashes STILL easy as hell to find. Search and replace, people, search and replace
- Non mandatory dashes were removed. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- capitals STILL used inconsistently (satellite Earth vs. satellite earth, to cite one example)
- also, it starts by calling the city by it's long name, but then uses "Trivandrum." Choose one and stick to it.
- capitals STILL used inconsistently (satellite Earth vs. satellite earth, to cite one example)
- The anglicized name will be used across the article since Technopark's own brand-name mentions it. This version is also better recognised outside India. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Government," "State," and various similar nouns should probably not be capitalized at all.
-
- The capitalization of these type of nouns is consistent with their usage in related literature and highlights the importance of these entities. I believe the same style can be retained, as they are not just generic nouns. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect the "Park" references should be dropped, or it should be mentioned PRIOR to using the ter that it is a common informal name for it.
- "The Park" references have been dropped and "Technopark" is now used uniformly for all references. -- Ajaypp 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Writing could still be slickened. See this copyedit
- Numerous unnecessary multiple links have to be hunted down
- The multiple links in the articles are now removed. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 10:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The source could be made far, far more readable by deleting the unnecessary long references name (no reference is used more than one, so they are useless.) and unused variables in cite templates.
- Source readability has been improved by removing unused variables in site templates and modifying reference names wherever possible. -- Ajaypp 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- & for "and"??? This alone would be enough to flunk the article.
- "&" is used in the names of companies, where it has been customarily used. This includes in their logos. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you ask the Copyediting league to have a good look at it. I know how hard it's to copyedit an article you've had under your nose for weeks or months. If it wasn't for all of these things, I would probably support the article. Circeus 17:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are way toomany little details that need to be looked at before this can reasonably be called "Wikipedia's best work":
-
- Strong SUPPORT :- The article provides comprehensive information about the Park. The socio-economic impact section is included, which can supply enough info about the economic impact in the society. No edit wars has been reported and the article fits in to WP:NPOV. The article now clearly possess the standards listed out in WP:WIAFA, and hence can be selected as a Featured article. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support- The article does quite good coverage of a unique subject. Definitely well written and notable. Should be featured--Kathanar 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support- Informative and well organized article-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 08:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support- Well written; comprehensive; zero errors. I support this article to be included in the elited category of Featured Article Status. --Samaleks 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good, but please run through and fix all the dashes and hyphens per WP:DASH. There are some hyphens that should be em-dashes, and some em-dashes that are surrounded by spaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hyphens have been replaced with en-dashes and em-dashes wherever relevant, with reference to Dash (punctuation). Thank you for pointing out the changes. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, they are wrong, and there are a number of hyphenated words that don't make sense. I fixed some, but there are still many. Please have a copyeditor look at them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyedit for proper dash usage is underway. Please check after a while (one day, maybe). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have done a quick copyedit for addressing the dash issues. I request the main author to check if all the instances of dash (or hyphen) uses have been covered. If I have missed something, please follow the WP:DASH guidelines to fix. Added one citation needed tag. Please address that. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyedit for proper dash usage is underway. Please check after a while (one day, maybe). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, they are wrong, and there are a number of hyphenated words that don't make sense. I fixed some, but there are still many. Please have a copyeditor look at them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- strong support. Great article
sumal 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
[edit] F-Zero GX
This article was the last GA collaboration and is a article of high quality. All of the peer review issues were addressed so here it is and feel free to leave comments. Tarret 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
CommentSupport I suppose I'll start this show. I made a couple edits when this article was a GAC, and have watched this article improve since then, as well as talking with the main contributor about the article several times. I ran through it one more time and found two suggestions, and would like to see them addressed before I support.--Clyde (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"and is widely considered one of the best futuristic racing games to date." needs a citation or a reword.The second to last paragraph in gameplay (begins with "The Vs. Battle") has zero citations in it. I didn't notice it before, but FAs should have at least one citation per paragraph.
- Support As the main contributor I've been closely editing the article to that of the reviewed version of Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, since I have not found a racing game to use as an example for FA. I can say this article's current status is the same of Zelda's current status, if not better. FMF|contact 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I've done some edits in the page, and I think it's good enough. igordebraga ≠ 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good job - !Malomeat 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Please add author information and article date to cites where available. Wickethewok 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not all of the accessdates in the refs are wikilinked. {{cite web}} does this automatically, but if you write out the source info by hand you have to remember to link it. Jay32183 04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.
[edit] Medieval cuisine
Grab a trencher, pass the frumenty and dunk a sop or two in the nearest cup o' wine, because here's a culinary delight sweeter than a galley worth of hypocras!
It all began with my accidental discovery of the none-too-humble subtlety when reading Timeline. From then on my fascination with medieval cookery just kept growing, and the result was a full-fledged gastronomical orgy of academic indulgence. I've plowed well over a thousand pages of literature by now, and considering how delightfully scrumptious the topic is, there's bound to be more in the form of various sub-articles (one has already been spawned). This is primarily a self-nomination, but I would like to thank Choess for his thorough and highly motivating GA-review, Andrew Dalby for his informative explanation on wine making, Geogre for a round of copyediting and miscellaneous pointers, Itinerant for providing useful URLs on calorie statistics, and, of course, all the users who have helped with everything from spell-checking to the occasional factual tidbit.
I'm sure that there might be a lot of things that need to be tweaked and copyedited. There's probably even gaps in the coverage, but I've reached the point where I feel that it's time to put the article through an FAC, as the peer review was unable to provoke anything but automated comments. So, without further banter, I bid you to do your worst! Peter Isotalo 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is meant by "Even though many of these plants were eaten on a daily basis by peasants and workers, they were generally considered less prestigious than meat."? The opposition you are drawing is a bit confusing as the two statements seem to be mutually supporting. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I read it as "peasants and workers had to eat the plants by necessity, but considered meat preferable" - I'd argue it's stating the obvious perhaps, but then I've no in-depth knowledge of conscience vegetarianism in the middle ages :-) Joopercoopers 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Most veggies were at the bottom of the prestige scale, and that's what I was trying to say. I'm open to suggestions on how to make that sentence less oblique. Medieval vegetarianism was very rare and practiced only by necessity on non-meat days by those who couldn't afford fish or by severe religious ascetics.
- Peter Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are you able to find any more sources? You seem to have a lack of citations. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another comment--is "apertif" spelled so intentionally or is that an error? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Done
- Comment - like the article generally, love the images. But there's a general paucity of citation that concerns me. I'd echo the earlier comment - the article needs more thorough citation to meet FA standards. - Mocko13 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the last two comments, it would be helpful to be more specific as to what requires a citation beyond what already exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is not a single paragraph or section that isn't thoroughly referenced. They're just not hacked up into tiny[2] little[3] pieces[4] that cite individual sentences[5] or fact statements.[6] The exception are two rather rather specific statistics (spice imports and meat consumption). My impression from the literature is that this is not a particularly controversial topic and the facts included in the article are, to the best of my knowledge, agreed on by most scholars in the field. If I had found substantial disagreement, I would have noted this. I don't see why I need to present a pedantic blow-by-blow account of my own reading schedule unless there are concrete controversies. Peter Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the last two comments, it would be helpful to be more specific as to what requires a citation beyond what already exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Minor objections andcomments (objections retracted, Kosebamse 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC))- The article should be moved to Medieval cuisine of Europe or something like that. Although the introduction makes it quite clear, and the connotations of "medieval" suggest that it's about European history, the title should reflect that as well.
- The abovementioned paucity of citation is in this case not too problematic, as this article is unlikely to generate much controversy, so it is not necessary to reference each and every detail. Nevertheless, it seems to rely on not too many sources and though I don't doubt their credibility, it would perhaps look better to have some more.
- Comment: The use of old-fashioned language in some sentences is quite acceptable in such an article, as long as it does not get too esoteric (although I am not a native speaker, I found it quite digestible).
- Comment: the pictures are just beautiful. Kosebamse 08:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- This issue has been discussed at the talkpage, and I believe it was addressed satisfactorily. The application of the term "medieval" is per definition something confined to Europe. You won't find references to, say, "medieval Chinese cuisine" or "medieval Arab cuisine", because the chronology applies to a stage of development rather than a specific time period applicable to all cultures.
- These are fairly exhausting sources. They are very thoroughly referenced in their own right and provide what to me gives the impression of a very good overall view of the topic. What's lacking is generally coverage of culturally peripheral regions like Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, due to the simple fact that most food scholars don't read Old Church Slavonic and all that. However, the article is trying to be reasonably general, and I already moved the regional cuisines to a separate article to not make it look as if I was ignoring, say, Scandinavia and Poland.
- Do let me know if you feel that the language is too high brow.
- Thank you! I was very pleased to find that many of them were readily available online and even at Commons. Peter Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ad 1. Not really convinced; although I agree that "medieval" strongly suggests "European", I don't think that this notion is so widespread that one can rely on every reader's historical literacy, so to say, so for clarity the other title would be preferable. Ad 2. I am not really worried about the sources, it's just that the current cultural climate here is one where unsourced statements are frowned upon. I certainly would not refuse FA status because of this. Ad 3. No problem here, I do like the writing. And again, its really a fine article and fascinating to read. Kosebamse 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still very reluctant to ad "of Europe". One of the strongest arguments for the current title is quite simply that there's nothing do disambiguate it from. If someone produces references to "medieval periods" of non-European cooking (Byzantine and Muslim cooking on the continent feel like reasonable exceptions), I might change my mind. As for unsourced statements, let those with concern point out specific issues and we'll see if they need to be smoothed over or not. Peter Isotalo 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- As a non-specialist, 'medieval...of Europe' sounds very redundant to me. Opabinia regalis 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still very reluctant to ad "of Europe". One of the strongest arguments for the current title is quite simply that there's nothing do disambiguate it from. If someone produces references to "medieval periods" of non-European cooking (Byzantine and Muslim cooking on the continent feel like reasonable exceptions), I might change my mind. As for unsourced statements, let those with concern point out specific issues and we'll see if they need to be smoothed over or not. Peter Isotalo 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ad 1. Not really convinced; although I agree that "medieval" strongly suggests "European", I don't think that this notion is so widespread that one can rely on every reader's historical literacy, so to say, so for clarity the other title would be preferable. Ad 2. I am not really worried about the sources, it's just that the current cultural climate here is one where unsourced statements are frowned upon. I certainly would not refuse FA status because of this. Ad 3. No problem here, I do like the writing. And again, its really a fine article and fascinating to read. Kosebamse 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Article is packed with insight, and is well researched, comprehensive and beautifully illustrated. Ceoil 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments well-written and fascinating article (I had no idea that what they call the most important meal of the day was considered weak!),
but I'm not completely ready to put myself in the support column just yet.see below
-
- The 'meals' section is focused almost entirely on upper-class fine dining. I assume that's because there's much more written about the subject than about smaller and more pedestrian events, but a short paragraph on anything known about lower-class meals would be good, and meals eaten alone/with just the family rather than as a large group. Comments below
- I've heard before that medieval peasants had an unusually nutritious diet due the variety of grains they ate in the 'less desirable' breads. Any of your sources mention this? Comments below
- Call me ignorant, but is a 'sick dish' something eaten by those who are ill, or does the phrase refer to something more specific? Done
- 'The English Assize of Bread and Ale of 1266 listed extensive tables where the size, weight, and price of a loaf of bread was set...' - this could be clearer as 'was regulated' or similar; without clicking the link, 'set' could be read as 'described or presented', implying that it was a descriptive rather than prescriptive document. Done
- 'The importance of vegetables to the common people is exemplified by accounts from 16th century Germany...' - I'm not one of those cite-every-jot-and-tittle people, and I assume this is in reference to the footnote that appears in the last paragraph of that section. But since this is explicitly talking about interpretations of primary sources, a footnote here would be a clearer way of demonstrating the proper source to consult for more information; I don't think it's a problem to use the same footnote twice in a row if they're different paragraphs. Same goes for '...mentioned in recipe collections' below. Comments below
- I'm not sure that hedgehog or squirrel meat is considered 'inappropriate' - certainly not common, but I hear of people eating squirrel meat. (How much meat can there really be on these guys anyway?) Done
- Maybe explicitly state that fish and seafood were not considered 'meat' (assuming they weren't)? I think the most common current usage places fish, at least, in the meat category. Comments below
- Image:Monk sneaking a drink.jpg is overlapping text on my screen; anyone else having that problem? Comments below
- Poor people drank watered-down vinegar as a beverage and not for some sort of health effect? Ewwwww.
- Beer 'was a humble brew compared with more southernly foodstuffs like olive oil and wine' - I can't quite parse this sentence. Southernly = higher prestige, apparently, and wine > beer, but how does olive oil fit in? Hopefully people weren't drinking that too? Done
- '...but with without hops.' - one of these must be a typo. Done
- The paragraph debunking the 'spices disguise spoiled meat' myth is a bit overwritten. Done
- 'A wide assortment of waffles, wafers eaten with cheese and hypocras or a sweet malmsey in northern France as issue de table ("departure from the table").' - this sentence no verb. Done
- The caption for Image:Pietro Lorenzetti 001.jpg mentions the hand gestures illustrated, but I didn't see them discussed anywhere in the article. Comments below
- See also list contains items that were linked in the text. Personally, I think this is useful, but I'm surprised nobody's griped about it yet, as it's apparently against the current manual of style. Comments below Opabinia regalis 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Very attentive comments, I must say. I've ticked off the pointers I believe I've addressed by tweaking prose. The relevant changes are here Here goes:
- The problem with descriptions of meals of the poor is of course that they never got their own etiquette books nor did they have as lavish banquets. I've simply not seen much detail in descriptions of a humble dinner in a small commoner's household. But it's interesting that you mention the idea of eating alone, because that one is mentioned, and it was not something that was really kosher. Medieval society was a collective affair and not eating with one's fellow man was considered suspicious. I'll add a comment on that later.
- I've not seen anything about high-fiber bread being a boon specific to commoners, so I can't say if it's reasonable or not. On the other hand, it would seem as if this might have been negated by the fact that the diet was probably very monotonous. There's also the estimates by many scholars that the majority of the population suffered from a constant lack of vitamin C due to the lack of fresh fruit and vegetables.
- I had problems with Image:Monk sneaking a drink.jpg overlapping text when I made a printout of an earlier version. It doesn't appear in online versions for me, though. I've seen it happen sporadically in other articles, but I have no idea why, how common it is or what to do about it.
- The hand gestures of the nuns was more of a bonus associated with the picture. I didn't feel it was entirely relevant to include in the text. A bit like the long comment on the picture of the Duke of Berry.
- I would like to insist on keeping the See also-links. One can't assume that someone checking it out has read the right sections, and these are only helpful in guiding those who want to read about related topics to the related and highly relevant articles.
- I'll get back to you later concerning citations on the importance of vegetables and the specification of non-meat meats.
- Peter Isotalo 10:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Nice edits. That's interesting that eating alone was considered 'suspicious'. On the matter of the poor, even if there's nothing really to say about their meals, a sentence to that effect would be useful to demonstrate that the omission is due to the absence of evidence. Still, it seems that even nobles must have had meals that were not huge feasts? (BTW, I had a quick look to find where I might have heard the nutritious bread thing, and can't find anything reliable making that claim, so I suspect it's one of those cereal-box-type 'facts'.)
- The image overlap problem is usually solvable by adding a {{clear}} immediately before the image. The problem is, that may produce a very large amount of white space for some browsers/resolutions. Your edits seem to have rearranged the text enough that the problem doesn't appear for me anymore.
- I entirely agree on the usefulness of well-chosen see also links; I hope the anti-see-also-section fad has died down. But I thought I should mention it. Opabinia regalis 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- There ya go. I think that should clear it up (along with a few other tweaks). Perhaps even a bit wordy, but I'll leave that to others to decide.
- Peter Isotalo 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, support. Now I think it's time for a snack... ;) Opabinia regalis 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
ConditionalSupport I did a copyedit but it is generally very well-written. The lack of citations is a problem. Where chapters are cited, and a span of pages, there should really be multiple citations of the exact pages. Some paragraphs have no citations. I would generally cite anything that makes you question whether such a statement could actually be true. Overall, this article is full of really interesting stuff and I would suggest everyone here read it. I learned a lot. I will support this after some of my comments below are addressed, BillDeanCarter 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC):- In the Wine section it might be a good idea to mention glogg which is a perfect description of a mulled wine. It's popular in Scandinavia. Comment below
- It might be a good idea to create a general Further information section at the end of the article, and possibly add a book version of Le Viandier that one can get a hold of. Include the external links section as well. It would be a jumping off point to actually make some medieval cuisine recipes afterwards.-BillDeanCarter 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below
- This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense: "Regretfully absent from most sources is the abundance of details about the humbler meals of the elite, and just about any information about the eating habits of the common people or the poor." Why is the abundance of details absent from most sources? Do you mean that there is an abundance of detail on elite eating habits, and none about common eating habits? I would also imagine that the elites meals were not humble.-BillDeanCarter 07:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below
- This phrase starts well and ends grammatically incorrect: "The collective and hierarchical nature of medieval society was reinforced in these rules of etiquette where the lower ranked were expected to help those in a higher position, the younger the older, and men women."-BillDeanCarter 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below
- I'm guessing this comment about the baker's wife isn't a joke: "The tables were later supplemented by adding the cost of everything from firewood and salt to a dog and even the baker's own wife." It deserves a cite of the exact page from whichever book it came from. It also leaves me with many questions.-BillDeanCarter 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below
- In the Cereals section the two images should swap positions. The image of the swindling baker should go alongside the third paragraph. Is the reason it hasn't been done because the swap looks awkward?-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below
- A good round of comments (and a nice copyedit at that). So here are the replies:
- Glogg is going to be merged with mulled wine any day now, so I'd like to hold off on the link.
- I've been thinking about adding a list of some of the more well-known medieval recipe collections just before the See also-links, but I'm holding off on that until I've actually checked out details on them. A further reading-section seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how to format it. Including the external links section in that seems a tad non-standard. (I mean, aren't external links just "further information" in of themselves?)
- I tried fiddling with the baker pics, but it just doesn't work. To me it just looks awkward no matter how much I shuffle them about. The current layout was the one that seemed to work best, and considering how prominent both images are relative to the amount of text, I don't think readers will be confused as to which paragraph they correspond to.
- Could you specify what you believe to be ungrammatical about the "The collective and hierarchical nature..."-sentence?
- Medieval sources were written by and for the elite. That's a problem that all historians encounter to one degree or another. There are no guides on etiquette for the poor because they couldn't afford them, and most of the time they couldn't even read them. Same goes for the cookbooks (which were actually recipe collections included in books about general dietetics and medicine most of the time) that weren't intended for the cooks, but their literate masters. Cooks learned the trade through apprenticeship and experience, not by reading literature. The accounts of the common man that do remain are mostly incidental ones in various chronicles, legends, illuminations, etc. They are very sparse and are quite indirect. I have thought about mentioning it in the article, but I found it rather difficult to know exactly where in the text to insert such disclaimers without repeating them. There's also the concern about not making it seem overly academic. The "humbler meals of the elite" was an attempt to point out that the elite didn't sit down to banquet every single day. I'll try to rephrase it.
- What do you feel is unclear about the specific details about the Assize? What are the questions that are raised by the statement? And why is a 4-page citation at the end of the paragraph not to be considered sufficient?
Peter Isotalo 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)- What are the "men women"? Are the younger, the older, and the "men women" those who are in a higher position? The end of the sentence makes no sense.
- I'm asking myself why the baker's own wife had a price tag on her life? Was it a joke? I mean I thought this might be vandalism at first. I think this is exactly why you want to have more citations in this article. On which page of which book did you read this? It's an unusual fact.
- Regarding comment, then the arrangement of images is fine.-BillDeanCarter 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the wording of that sentence was a valid way of removing verb redundancy, but I'll rephrase it if you feel it's too oblique.
- A wife was family and families cost money for the (heh) bread-winners, which were, of course mostly men. Scully quotes W. Duncan Reekie's book Give Us This Day... on the topic and the reason for all the odd additions was a successful lobbying campaign by the London baker's guild. I think it's a bit harsh claiming that the statement puts a "price tag on her life". It doesn't appear all that different from how salaries are still set in societies where men are expected to bring home (pardon the pun) the dough. The difference is that this explicitly defined the state of affairs rather than obscuring it with false neutrality. But I can certainly switch "dog" and "wife" to make it less distracting.
All in all, I think this edit should take care of your concerns. Peter Isotalo 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- A good round of comments (and a nice copyedit at that). So here are the replies:
- Final say Okay, I Support as done above. I still think that there are way too few citations, but I see you've made two edits to solidify your style of citations, so I'll let my gripe go. All my other comments have been met. Thanks and good luck. I look forward to reading other articles from you.-BillDeanCarter 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - a very filling repast, best consumed by being cut into pieces by one's eunuchs and eaten with a delicate golden fork. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, first I have no issue with the citations; but there are some other things that need work.
- The lead is not a summary of the main text (see WP:LEAD), for example it discusses class differences at length and they aren't really mentioned again during the article; which also make me wonder if the article is talking mostly about the dietary habits of the nobility, pheasants or a mash-up of both (comprehensiveness issue). Ideally the article would have a section on how food was regulated between the classes - that isn't in the lead.
- Some of the giant paragraphs - like the seafood one - could be broken into more readable chunks.
- Quotes should not be in italics as per the MoS.
- All the items in the see also section are in the text; therefore this section is not needed.
- --Peta 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- One at a time, then:
- It might be difficult to notice off the bat, but the class differences are described throughout the article. Give me a few days to look into the rest of your concerns. As for pheasant mash, I'll see if I can find a recipe. ;-)
- Other than the seafood, could you specify a bit?
- Fixed, I suppose. But I thought it looked good...
- Oh, c'mon... What purpose does removing them serve? It's very probable that readers might check out the see also-section without having noticed those links. I suppose this is some MoS guideline, but I find it too harsh. It simply doesn't make the article less useful to repeat a few very relevant links in a section dedicated to it. And those links are very relevant.
- Support - Article definitely qualifies. Artaxiad 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - nicely done. Meets all criteria. –Outriggr § 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support.' Extrememly impressive and easily among our best. Can you bring everything else on medieval daily life up to this quality too? - Taxman Talk 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
![[35]](http://assets.panda.org/custom/xml/graphics/species/distribution_map_turtles.gif){kind=link}
![[36]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cetacea_range_map_Spinner_Dolphin.PNG){kind=link}
![[40]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bagramyan.jpg){kind=link}
